But if only that was true!

Have you ever received a LinkedIn invitation you were utterly puzzled by?  One of my connections comes from someone with whom our brief email dialogue resulted in a shun; one of those “We have no further need for contact,” non-email emails, when a very simple and important question goes entirely ignored.  I thought I would never hear from this person again, only to receive an invitation to their LinkedIn network several months later.  This brings up a point:

Are you sending invitations to everyone in your email address book, or do you carefully consider each invitation?

No answer is wrong here.  Social networks like Facebook are, after all, replacing email accounts for tweens, so why couldn’t it be the same for LinkedIn? 

Some might view each invitation and connection as a special one, someone with whom you now share an important bond.  You are linked forever.  You’ve joined their family!

Others, like the colleague I surprisingly got an invite from, probably see LinkedIn through cold, distant eyes.  “You’re in my address book,” they seem to say, “so now I’ll put you in my LinkedIn network as well.”  They keep it simple and “professional.”  No looking each other in the eyes, no kissing.  This is business!

But which one are you dealing with?  The first person – the one who looks after their LinkedIn account like a child – seems open to a more valuable relationship.  They’re like your new aunt or uncle, the one you can ask anything.  But the second person – the one who just sends invites because they’re either trying to keep up with the competition or because they’re sending invites to anyone in their address book – is like the plumber you get a Christmas card from, yet undoubtedly is not your friend.

How do you know which is which?  And does it even matter? 

Which brings up another point:

Why are we using LinkedIn to begin with?

The answer is different for everyone I suppose.  I can’t say I’ve directly realized the benefit, aside from the fact it provides a justifiable and occasionally interesting way to kill time.  It’s also nice to see what old classmates are up to, etc.

And it must be valuable for job-seekers and employers, too.  That makes sense. 

One question I find myself asking a lot, however: Where’s the benefit for someone with 500 connections?  That seems like an awful lot to manage.  I also think having too many connections either makes you highly approachable, or completely unapproachable.  For instance, someone with that many connections has clearly taken to LinkedIn and given it quite a bit of his or her time.  Does that mean, for example, they’re more open to doling out recommendations, one of the tools LinkedIn says will make you “three times as likely to be found in searches?” Or will they treat you like the unimportant connection you really are? 

I don’t have an answer here: I’ve never sought a recommendation because, for the time being, I’m not sure it’s important to me to be three times more likely to be found in searches.

On the other hand…

The more connections you have, the more opportunities for connections you will have in the future.

And that’s the point of LinkedIn: to make connections.  I’ve heard gaming experts say that social networking is just a game in and of itself, the object being to add friends in a contest for which popularity is at stake. 

You have to hand it to LinkedIn: They’ve managed to create the exact same game under the guise of a setting in which popularity is not the issue.  This has allowed people like my colleague who showed off his 500 connections like a new Porsche to feel safe gloating.  He’s no child playing a popularity game!  No!  He’s a professional acting like a professional, adding valuable connections that will make him a more professional professional! 

That said we can’t forget to mention:

The “I Couldn’t Care Less About the Games Being Played” Crowd...

LinkedIn, for people who have important things to do in their life, for people who already find balancing family and work difficult enough, for people who thought merit badges and sailing awards were stupid, even when they were 12, is just an organizational tool.  Nothing more. 

How do we identify these people?  Hard to say.  But they’re probably the most valuable people to be connected to.  They’re the heads of companies or they’re the bosses of heads of companies.  Their networks are huge, but still under 500 because they’re too busy to have created a network so large, and their networks are made up of other people like them.

Their profiles are pretty thin because they don’t have much time.

They more often receive invitations than send them.

And if you do receive an invitation from one, you’re likely the head of a company or the boss of a head of company.  Or you work for them.

So what exactly is the point of Adult Social Networks if not a form of entertainment?

I still think the jury’s out on this one.  For now we’re still in the early stages; people are building their networks (or choosing not to and instead waiting for invitations).  There’s clearly some good information being made openly available and in an organized format.

But what’s the point?  Are people finding that their careers and personal lives have improved?  Are employers finding higher quality people more easily?  Are job-seekers making contacts that lead to better positions?  Sure, these are the outspoken intentions of adult social networks, but are they the point?

Or are we still 12-year-old campers showing off our trophies to each other, making “connections” for what amounts to nothing more than a casual game?

Scott Goldberg