LinkedIn or Locked Out
Paul Allen (founder of Infobases, Ancestry.com and MyFamily.com, not the Microsoft one) kicks off a recent Entrepreneur Magazine article, Working the Net, demonstrates the level that tools like LinkedIn have risen to for some people:
Paul Allen, managing partner of business incubator Infobase Ventures in Provo, Utah, likes to help entrepreneurs with advice on business plans and raising capital. But as a frequent lecturer at business schools and conferences, he recently found himself inundated with requests. So he made a new rule: If you’re not a member of the LinkedIn network with a minimum of 10 connections and two endorsements on the site, don’t even bother calling him. “The most important thing for an entrepreneur is not necessarily what they know, but who they know,” says Allen.
If you’re not linked in, you’re locked out. These tools are no longer a curiosity — they are quickly becoming “how business is done”. Entrepreneurs are using them to connect with investors, strategic partners, board members, prospective customers and potential employees — the entire spectrum. According to the article, two key advantages are:
- Accelerating the speed at which companies can get to the decision-maker
- “Leveling the field by replacing costly middlemen small businesses can ill afford”
Paul Allen posted about it in his blog, prompting a reply from Naina Redhu (great blog on business networking out of India — new to me, and I look forward to reading it) disagreeing:
RE: endorsements
Endorsements at least, are not a means to measure a person’s worth. Colleagues, clients and people we know who will not say anything negative about us write all our endorsements.
RE: connections
I also do not understand why anyone would “only” want to connect with someone who has a large number of connections. If a person is well networked it means that he / she is a good conversationalist, has the time to personally keep in touch with all his connections and makes an effort to do so and maybe he / she is “good with people”. The number of professionals on our personal networks only adds “snobbery” value when someone we do not know views the same.
Naina does, though, acknowledge the need some people have to use sites like LinkedIn as a filter:
I can understand why Paul Allen, who is a busy man, needs to critically view each person who approaches him for connecting on the LinkedIn network or for VC funding. Fact is, all of us are busy professionals and need to set some boundaries about our networking practices. Each person has different rules, different best practices and different approaches to how they handle business networking and using one example as a general sentiment is biased.
Naina’s post continues with some excellent insights — I highly encourage you to take a read and add your comments.
A. LinkedIn
B. Locked Out
C. None of the Above
IMHO the correct answer is C.
Unfortunately a good % of the highly connected people in LI have built networks of people they DO NOT KNOW! So what good is a network that you can NOT use — that does not really exist — except as a list on your LI page?
Some of the ‘highly connected’ are starting to complain on various LI Yahoo Groups — they don’t have the time to forward 50/requests a day from people, they now realize, they do not know.
A person with many contacts on LI *may* be a good networker — OR — they may be a promiscuous pest! Be careful.
Comment by Valdis — 7/12/2005 @ 2:52 pm
Yup — David and I have both long been advocates of being more cautious/selective about who you link to in LinkedIn. A few people have made a pretty compelling case to me as to why they go for maximum connections, but that is really only sustainable for a very limited number of people in certain types of work. Unfortunately, knowing that many of those ties are so weak — really non-existent — degrades the value of the network for those who want to use it for “trusted referrals”.
It seems like the superior model would be one that also included some sort of strength metric based on actual communications — But that already exists, and hasn’t gotten the traction LinkedIn has.
Unfortunately, I don’t really see a solution. It’s sort of a “Tragedy of the Commons” problem. It sounds terrible in principle to dictate (or at least heavily influence) how people use the system by imposing some kind of “rationing”, but without it, its overuse may end up destroying (or at least trivializing) the common resource.
What you really need is a model that “costs” (not necessarily monetarily, but in some other way if not) the heavy users more. This is the solution to the Tragedy of the Commons archetype. The trick is finding the right cost model that stabilizes the use of the commons.
Comment by Scott Allen — 7/12/2005 @ 7:24 pm
Note that some may have a harder time than other getting recommendations, not because they don’t deserve them, but because the company for which they are currently employed has a policy of giving any recommendations. For my company, putting a recommendation for a coworker, boss, or subordinate on LinkedIn would be breaking policy in view of hundreds of other coworkers also on LinkedIn.
Comment by Richard Upton — 7/17/2005 @ 4:34 pm
This is such a tricky question. I continue to wrestle with this myself.
I have spent a bit of time using both LinkedIn and eCademy, the latter to offer perhaps a bit more international coverage and exposure.
I have found that certainly the “depth” of one’s contacts truly proves to be most valuable in terms of being able to add value to those who seek you guidance and counsel or referral to a knowledgable individual. Also, I would hate to somehow mar my carefully established relationships by a flippant referral without having first vetted the opportunity/question/request first myself.
Nonetheless, as I seek to network a bit more in the Baltimore/Washington metro area, I find that a few “supernetworkers” with 50,000 connections have actually proven helpful on LinkedIn in allowing me to reach and actually to enjoy healthy and fruitful conversations with individuals who are even 4 degrees away from me.
Perhaps the best advice may be simply to remain aware of the nature and potential effects of each time of communication and referral. Sometimes to pause and reflect before requesting or referring may indicate the best course of action.
I believe that both breadth and depth will remain complementary and that we will all continue to struggle with them.
Comment by Luca Sergio — 7/18/2005 @ 11:19 pm
Hi Scott and others,
Thank you for the opportunity you give us to share views on tha great topic !
From my perspective, that question is about responsibility.
Would you like it or not, what people are looking for on LinkedIn, OpenBC and other SNs is a mix of YOU and YOUR NETWORK.
That is why you have to be conscious about who you connect to, for numerous reasons.
But if you never open the door to someone you do not know yet, you miss something (see below). On the other hand, requests such as “I am building a network, let’s connect” ar NO LONGER enough in most of the cases (except if the person is recommended by someone I trust).
People like rules and figures and this one is popping up in France these days
-> what percentage of people in my online network should I REALLY know (what is really, actually ? we will see below)
=> MY ANSWER is usually the following: “depending on your current situation and future projects, anything between 30% and 80% is fine”. The best figure for me on average is 80%.
WHY 30% is a minimum ?
=> if you know (email exchange, phone conversation, meeting, recommendations are ways to “know someone”) less than 30% of your online network, you will often be in a uncomfortable situation on requests-based platforms (such as LinkedIn) : passing on requests from people you don’t know to people you don’t know…or WORST: blocking these requests BECAUSE you do not know enough the sender or the receiver. LinkedIn is unfortunately poisoned by people who have many contacts they don’t know (ask people : you will be surprised).
WHY 80% is a good figure ?
=> on the other hand, if you ONLY connect to people you already know (the 100% figure) , you probably miss some opportunities (the weak link factor) for YOU and YOUR NETWORK and do not show yourself as open as someone on these networks is supposed to be (for how long will they be “friendly” networks ?). And if you have a trouble one day (someone cheating you or people you know), you keep control and credit in your network by excluding him and apologize to your network.
Finally, be careful, clear and transparent about what you are interested in and answer to requests, would it be by YES or a NO. From my perspective, their is nothing WORST than NOT answering to request for a contact.
What about you ? What is your current percentage ? Your view about the IDEAL percentage ?
Please share with us the percentage of people you are connected to and actually know, thank you.
But this is my humble opinion and I understand others do not share that view. For those who share that view (and others), be my guest on one or several platforms I use daily : openbc (favourite), linkedin (largest), or soflow (just started recently by a poll about social networking).
Finally, as these networks are part of our lives and our lives is about working hard and having fun : give me a good reason or make me laugh if you want me to be part of your network !
Have a great day ! (as “good” is no longer enough for most of us…)
Yann
Comment by Yann Mauchamp — 7/20/2005 @ 8:36 am
[…]
David Teten of the VirtualHandshake referenced my blog on the LinkedIn or LockedOut post,for the comment on the Entre […]
Pingback by online business networking blog by naina — 11/23/2005 @ 10:34 pm
[…] LinkedIn is a powerful tool, as acknowleged by so many people around the globe. However, it seems the success of the site can lead to some exagerated… elitism. As an example, I’d like to mention this old story of a busy business man that won’t answer you except you’re registered on LinkedIn, have more than 10 connections and a minimum of 2 recommendations! […]
Pingback by Robin FERRIERE » Blog Archive » LinkedIn elitism — 10/14/2006 @ 7:54 am
Hi Scott,
Thank you for the comment you leave on my site. It helped me make the distinction between your own point of view and the one of Mr Allen.
Please keep us informed through your book and through your site about the best ways to use the net to enhance our business abilities.
Robin
Comment by Robin FERRIERE — 10/15/2006 @ 7:48 am
[…] It reiterated the theme of just how essential a business tool LinkedIn is becoming (see LinkedIn or Locked Out): “For many, it’s become irresponsible to not invite business associates into your LinkedIn network,” says Mikolaj Jan Piskorski, an assistant professor at Harvard Business School who specializes in sociology and strategy. “When that kind of cultural inflection point occurs, which is what LinkedIn is going through now, that is when things really begin to take off.” […]
Pingback by Linked Intelligence - The smart source for all things LinkedIn™ » A MySpace for Grown-Ups — 12/6/2006 @ 2:46 pm