Summary
Friedman's article, dripping with delicious sarcasm, addresses LinkedIn's asinine professional conservatism when it comes to so-called "thought leadership," beginning with the limitations the platform puts on those who aren't already connected, and ending up by tracing the roots of American business optimism to Dale Carnegie, author of the 1930s book How to Win Friends and Influence People.
Kane's article, which basically presents points made by Career Writer Nicole Williams, offers eight practices to avoid as a user on LinkedIn. These include such topics as what sort of profile picture to use (or rather, not to use), how to use the privacy settings, and a few tips on advanced usage of various features like status updates and connection requests.
Friedman's article, dripping with delicious sarcasm, addresses LinkedIn's asinine professional conservatism when it comes to so-called "thought leadership," beginning with the limitations the platform puts on those who aren't already connected, and ending up by tracing the roots of American business optimism to Dale Carnegie, author of the 1930s book How to Win Friends and Influence People.
Kane's article, which basically presents points made by Career Writer Nicole Williams, offers eight practices to avoid as a user on LinkedIn. These include such topics as what sort of profile picture to use (or rather, not to use), how to use the privacy settings, and a few tips on advanced usage of various features like status updates and connection requests.
Response
[This is gonna go a little longer than normal...]
Let me just say that I read Friedman's amazingly written article twice: once to myself and then again to my wife just so she could relish the wonderful sarcasm and the incision of it all. I found myself agreeing with her perspective, since her points seemed to touch on nodes from which I'd already had some doubts and questions, such as whom LinkedIn really benefits (answer, those who probably already have connections with real people). I appreciated her putting LinkedIn in a greater cultural context.
I read it before I read Kane's work, and I have to admit that I was viewing it through Friedman's lens. Especially after looking up Nicole Williams (the link above goes to her LinkedIn), who seems to be cut out of the same thought leader mold as some of Friedman's targets for criticism.
Overall, I tend most to agree with this statement of Friedman's: "LinkedIn merely digitizes the core, and frequently cruel, paradox of networking events and conferences. You show up at such gatherings because you want to know more important people in your line of work—but the only people mingling are those who, like you, don’t seem to know anyone important."
As I read Kane's article, I realized that instead of leveling the networking playing field, it has just applied gameification to it. Now we all have a number above our heads saying what our score is, and what's more, it's an unbalanced game. Don't believe me? Kane quotes Williams thusly:
"Every few days, put something in your status to keep it fresh, and show you’re active and engaged—no one will know what you’ve done if you’re not showing it off."
But if it's not visible to the ones who count because you're not connected to them, then what does it matter? Who cares? In this way, Friedman really expertly drew out the Escher stairway of the system (as viewed from one perspective; yes, pun intended).
Reading Kane's article, I kept getting the distinct impression that I was reading an official strategy guide for some video game. But maybe this just means that it's all really a game after all. A race. A rat race.
Nah.
[This is gonna go a little longer than normal...]
Let me just say that I read Friedman's amazingly written article twice: once to myself and then again to my wife just so she could relish the wonderful sarcasm and the incision of it all. I found myself agreeing with her perspective, since her points seemed to touch on nodes from which I'd already had some doubts and questions, such as whom LinkedIn really benefits (answer, those who probably already have connections with real people). I appreciated her putting LinkedIn in a greater cultural context.
I read it before I read Kane's work, and I have to admit that I was viewing it through Friedman's lens. Especially after looking up Nicole Williams (the link above goes to her LinkedIn), who seems to be cut out of the same thought leader mold as some of Friedman's targets for criticism.
Overall, I tend most to agree with this statement of Friedman's: "LinkedIn merely digitizes the core, and frequently cruel, paradox of networking events and conferences. You show up at such gatherings because you want to know more important people in your line of work—but the only people mingling are those who, like you, don’t seem to know anyone important."
As I read Kane's article, I realized that instead of leveling the networking playing field, it has just applied gameification to it. Now we all have a number above our heads saying what our score is, and what's more, it's an unbalanced game. Don't believe me? Kane quotes Williams thusly:
"Every few days, put something in your status to keep it fresh, and show you’re active and engaged—no one will know what you’ve done if you’re not showing it off."
But if it's not visible to the ones who count because you're not connected to them, then what does it matter? Who cares? In this way, Friedman really expertly drew out the Escher stairway of the system (as viewed from one perspective; yes, pun intended).
Reading Kane's article, I kept getting the distinct impression that I was reading an official strategy guide for some video game. But maybe this just means that it's all really a game after all. A race. A rat race.
Nah.
Question
Kane talks about LinkedIn groups as being one way to get exposure and meet people without already knowing them. Could this be a path to success for the rest of us?
Kane talks about LinkedIn groups as being one way to get exposure and meet people without already knowing them. Could this be a path to success for the rest of us?