Tag Archives: LinkedIn

My thoughts on the death of LinkedIn Answers

2 Replies

answersBy now you probably know LinkedIn’s Question/Answer feature (Simply called Answers) is deceased, extinct, departed, an afterthought, gonzo. (See related article that offers alternatives.)

This means millions of LinkedIn members have no opportunity to ask questions—which I’ve done quite often—and answer questions, which I’ve done more than I’d like to admit.

I’m not the only one who’s disappointed with LinkedIn’s choice, Jason Alba, author of greatly regarded I’m on LinkedIn–Now What???, commented on the imminent removal of LinkedIn Answers:

“Answers was, for years, the only tool to help me accomplish my three purposes (share my brand, grow my network, nurture individual relationships).”

I caught the Answer bug back in March of 2009, three years after I joined LinkedIn. Those were hours of obsessively searching for questions to answer about professional networking, résumés, job search, career, using LinkedIn, staffing, and many more categories. Eventually I settled on Job Search as my category of choice.

To the chagrin of my family, I spent hours in my large chair typing away, always making sure I provided sincere and thoughtful answers. Come to think of it, I stopped criticizing their stupid television shows, so I guess my family didn’t mind.

Did I mention I eventually became the leader of “Best Answers” in the Job Search category? I don’t talk about it a lot, mainly because I don’t want to come across as a braggart and also because I’m not sure what value “Best Answers” hold. But, yeah, I was kicking ass in that category.

Answering questions not only gave me hours of mental stimulation; it drew the attention of jobseekers who commented that they appreciated my advice. I also connected with other career pundits who saw my answers and agreed with them. Thinking back to those times, I would agree that my network took form and began to blossom.

There were many times when I had an urgent question and knew I’d have 10 answers from the LinkedIn hawks within the hour. They were always scanning Answers. I received a ton of great answers  One question I remember asking about how to reword my profile’s title garnered a stellar answer. I took the advice from the person who received “Best Answer” from me and ran with it.

Did I always get quality answers? Not always. Some answers, in fact, were useless and driven by individuals’ agendas. These answers left me thinking, “Is this person answering a different question?” What always killed me was when a person would answer a question with one sentence or even one word.

The one-sentence answers were usually from people who tried to earn”This Week’s Top Experts” (TWTE) record by giving the most answers for the week. I estimate the average TWTE shamefully answered 600 questions a week–that’s 200 shy of what penned since I began answering questions. Do these people work?

Some LinkedIn members complained about the quality of answers saying that you weren’t necessarily an expert because you earned “Best Answer” status. I could see their point. Some answers didn’t warrant a “Best Answer.”

In all, Answers was a nice feature that will be missed by me and others. One of my connections, Darrel DiZoglio, said Answers generated business for him because his answers prompted people to contact him for his résumé services. (He was the leader of the Résumé category and there was a snowball’s chance in hell of catching him. He’s also one of the best at his trade.)

You are right if you guessed I posted a question about how people would feel when Answers goes away. The question garnered 14 answers and although it was hard to award a “Best Answer,” I gave it to someone who answered sincerely and thoughtfully.

Announcing my Person of the Year for 2012

2 Replies

JobseekersTime just announced its Person of the Year, Barack Obama. To some this is a time to celebrate, to others it might be cause for having a stiff drink.

Last year I declared my Person of the Year; and because I believe in tradition, I will again announce my Person of the Year. This may come as no surprise to many of you; I am going with the same “person.”

The Jobseeker.

Although the Jobseeker was not, like Barack Obama, “both the symbol and in some ways the architect of this new America,” he or she demonstrated dignity and professionalism, networked and paid it forward, wrote compelling marketing material resulting in interviews, and finally (after more than a year, in some cases), landed a job. Or maybe not.

There were many Jobseekers who demonstrated true heroism throughout the entire year, simply by the way they handled themselves. They:

  • Woke up every morning to put in a full day of hunting for work, leaving no stones upturned and considering every possibility.
  • Maintained that screw-the-economy-I-will-get-a-job attitude.
  • Knew that every day was a day when they might have run into a person who could hire them, or someone who knew a person who could hire them.
  • Took a break every once and awhile to recharge their batteries, but not too long of a break. A day or two at the most. They even networked during the holidays.
  • Followed their career plan of revising their résumé, creating a list of companies they research and contacted, building a LinkedIn profile that meets today’s standards, and other best practices.
  • Attended workshops and took advantage of job-search pundits’ advice, learning that things have changed in the past ten years, but, nonetheless, trudge on.
  • Accepted and embraced the Hidden Job Market, making penetrating it a priority in their job-search plan.
  • Attended interview after interview until they hit a home run with an employer smart enough to hire them. The Jobseeker will never give up, despite the challenges they encounter.
  • Never forgot the important things in life, like family and friends, and taking care of their health. They didn’t let the job search consume them.
  • Faced despondency or depression with courage and perseverance.

These are just a few of the reasons why The Jobseeker  is my Person of the Year. If you think of other reasons, let me know by commenting on this article. I think I should send my reasons to Time and demand a recount.

Newsflash–a new test finally makes résumés obsolete

1 Reply

The new argument for the death of résumés (will it ever end?) is not LinkedIn or any other online profile that will cause its demise; no, it’s a personality test called Cream.hr, which guarantees to make the hiring process flawless.

It takes more pressure off hiring managers, recruiters, and human resources. What a wonderful thing; no more résumés and less decision making from hiring authorities.

An article in Wired.com  called Kill Your Résumé: What about Using Science to Hire asserts that this test “can unearth the perfect job candidates even if they don’t necessarily have the most relevant work experience or college degree on paper.” The test can even select executive-level candidates worth interviewing, assuring hiring authorities they have what it takes.

According to Cream.hr the most essential skills are “task management skills, work ethic, intelligence, and what it calls the “Big Five” personality traits – openness, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism.” And this test will nail down all these traits without a single résumé having to be read. Simply wonderful.

What makes this tests even more amazing is that it’s hard for applicants to fool it, as opposed to a personality test that many companies use, Unicru. The way Cream.hr accomplishes this is by asking similar questions multiple times to assure consistency in answers.

For example, one question gives you a list of five personalities traits including “I am the life of the party” and “I am always prepared,” both of which sound similar to the Myers-Briggs Personality Indicator. The first example determines extraversion, while the second speaks to a preference for judging.

(Maybe what’s really got me riled is the fact that extraversion is a preferred trait for candidates. After all, introverts can’t possibly be considered among the “perfect” candidates, can they? I think most of my introverted colleagues would disagree whole-heartily with this assumption.)

It’s possible that résumés will finally become obsolete, which means jobseekers will no longer have to labor over writing them and, most importantly, employers will no longer have to read them. This is a big selling point for the Cream.hr; for a mere fee ranging from $99.00 to $499.00, companies will no longer have to read tons of résumés.

I have some questions about the effectiveness of this wunder software, such as, does it identify a candidate’s accomplishments, or reveal one’s ability to write succinctly, or show the jobseeker’s understanding of the position? Will it make companies lazy as they rely on a test that has as much human element as…a robot.

The hiring process is never a sure thing but to use a test to determine that best candidates, no matter how accurate, is simply that…a test. If all companies rely on a test such as this, our job as career advisors will be to teach our clients to answer the questions the way employers want them to. We’ll see how this argument goes.

Recent college grads, join LinkedIn Groups and learn from the experts

1 Reply

Are you a recent college grad and wondering if you should join LinkedIn? While you’re wondering, there are many college grads who are making the commitment to engage in a serious online networking campaign. It’s time that you make the commitment.

One of the most respected job search experts in the field, Martin Yate of the Knock em Dead series, discusses one among many good reasons to join LinkedIn–join and participate in LinkedIn groups. Take the time now to read, How recent grads can build useful networking and mentor relationships.

In his article Martin writes about how to utilize the Discussions feature of industry/occupation-specific groups.

“You can make useful contacts at all levels by joining the special interest LinkedIn groups relevant to your profession and becoming a visible part of those groups by contributing to the conversations and adding the contacts you make this way to your network,” he writes.

He suggest that you 1) read group discussion posts and add comments, 2) post discussions of your own, 3) post questions of your own. This is very sound advice, but take it a step further; join LinkedIn before you graduate and get a head start on your competition.

A better solution to a tired question; are résumés obsolete?

2 Replies

I can’t express in words how tired I am of hearing the questions, “Are résumés dead” or “Are résumés obsolete?” I’m almost as tired of hearing this than I am of hearing my daughters arguing over a pair of jeans.

It’s as if people are asking and writing about whether the  résumé is obsolete to create a self-fulfilling  prophesy that will bring on its demise. Personally, I think the  résumé has a good deal of life in it.

So you can imagine my annoyance when I came across a recent article from my much admired LinkedIn connection, Martin Yate, titled Are Résumés Obsolete? Résumés vs. Social Media; and then my pleasure when he states that both are needed. So the LinkedIn profile, as a passive document that requires employers to type keywords to find you; and the résumé, as a tailored document you send to target companies, which will also look for the requisite keywords in order to find you in their databases.

Martin writes: You are going to need both a résumé and a social media profile for your job search, and they are both going to need search engine optimization to be productive.

Bottom line: jobseekers need both the résumé and LinkedIn profile in order to compete in this tight job market; and they need to create strategic documents that succeed in landing them an interview. In other words, there’s no reason to choose between the two. I hope this ends the debate, because I for one am tired of hearing it.

Quantity versus quality on LinkedIn

Leave a reply

In an article by NPR, “Don’t Believe Facebook; You Only Have 150 Friends,” it challenges the viability of having more than 150 friends on Facebook. The article cleverly relates a story about Bill Gore, the founder of Gor-Tex, who became so frustrated with being unable to name or recognize all of his employees, that he capped the number of people to 150 at each of his company’s locations.

Although I know little to nothing about Facebook, I see a comparison between this social networking application and the extremely popular professional networking application, LinkedIn. I firmly believe that the more contacts you have on LinkedIn, the more your network resembles your group of Facebook friends; they’re hard to keep track of.

British Anthropologist, Robin Dunbar, who is quoted in the NPR article, as well as in Malcolm Gladwell’s The Tipping Point, for her theory on the number of people you can actually know. Like Bill Gore, she caps it at 150.

“The figure of 150 seems to represent the maximum number of individuals with whom we can have a genuinely social relationship, the kind of relationship that goes with knowing who they are and how they relate to us,” she is quoted in The Tipping Point.

There has been a debate brewing among LinkedIn users over quantity versus quality contacts. Some who argue for quantity ask are you fully utilizing LinkedIn’s effectiveness by accepting only the people with whom you have developed a relationship, people you trust?

Others argue that building trust and long-term relationships is what networking is about; it’s a slow evolving process. Only after you have contacted a person seven times, some believe, will your contacts become true connections. (Seven is also a mystical number.)

For those who strive for quantity, the argument is a valid one. The more people you catch in your net, the better the possibility of starting something new. Who knows if one of the people you meet will turn into someone valuable? Business people bank on making as many connections as possible, as the more often their face appears on your home page, the more you’ll think about the products or services they sell.

Quality contacts are those with whom you have a relationship. In relationship building, LinkedIn can be an excellent tool for reaching out to people (contacts) that you’d otherwise not know about; but as the proponents of knowing the people who are in your network say, you have to follow up and reach out to them in a personal way. Then they become connections.

As a job search trainer, I recommend quality over quantity. Throwing out invitations like chum line may yield you some success reeling in fish; but having a focused networking strategy is far more effective.

If you’re a business person, quantity might be your thing. But as a jobseeker, showing 500+ contacts might show desperation or lack of focus.

You jobseekers should heed Bill Gore’s story and ask yourself, if a successful business owner, who employs thousands of people, understands the importance of a focused group of employees, shouldn’t you take the same approach to your networking strategy? What are your thoughts on this?

The confession of an idiot…or be selective about who you invite to join your LinkedIn network

1 Reply

That would be me. Here’s why. You see, I was approaching 400 connections on LinkedIn and started getting greedy. I wanted more connections. Not too many; I just wanted about 1,000, not 10,000 or anything like that. So I joined a service that promises to generate thousands of connections for me. This service lived up to its promise.

You’re probably thinking, “Why did you join this service if you knew what you’d get?” And you’re right. That’s why I’m an idiot. That’s why I want the invites to stop pouring in, more than 30 a day sometimes, often from people who lack a photo, have a hellishly weak headline that reads, “Looking,” or are scammers who are hoping for a sale. Or a combination of all three.

If you’re wondering what I do with the bazillion invites, I Ignore the ones mentioned above–which accounts for 95% of them. At the end of the evening, I clean my Inbox (because I hate clutter) and await the next day when the barrage of invites start again.

I know some of you are muttering right now, “What an idiot” right now. This is why it’s called a confession. I’m confessing to making a mistake and possibly disappointed thousands of people who want to be connected with anyone they can, any person with a heartbeat. Otherwise, I can’t think of why they’d like to connect with me. To those who simply want to collect connections, I apologize.

There’s a great article from a woman named Mildred Talabi (now, she’s someone I’d like to connect with) titled Why You Should Reject LinkedIn Requests, which I think is inappropriately titled; it should be titled: Why You Should be Selective and Not Join a Service that will Flood You with Unwanted Invites. But that’s not the point. The point is that she makes a real good argument for being selective.

There are two camps on this issue as far as Mildred explains. First, having a huge number of connections increases your visibility and potential for getting a job offer or business, e.g., business owners who want to reach as many potential customers as possible.

Second, with so many connections, it’s impossible to keep track of them and maintain a healthy relationship. (After all, we only have the capacity to know, really know, 150 people). This is where I now stand, and have always stood, until I joined that service in a moment of insanity.

Well that’s how I took her reasoning, and I hope I didn’t screw up her great argument.

So what do I do now? I guess I apologize to all those people who wanted to be one of my connections—although I don’t see why they would—and buck it up for a year. Yeah, I paid a year’s fee in advance. Go ahead, call me an idiot.

First impressions count, they really do

Leave a reply

Despite what people may have told you, first impressions count. They count a lot. For example, my beautiful and charming daughter left her Facebook page open this morning. So naturally I spent a little time looking at the posts. An hour later I’m thinking Holy Cow, this stuff is heinous, bordering on obscene, and my daughter’s friends’ parents/legal guardians would be appalled if they saw it.

My point is that this filth I saw this morning will probably be on the Internet for a long time to come. And when my daughter’s friends decide to apply for their first paying job, employers best not see what they wrote, even five years ago. First impression count.

I joined OpenNetorkers.com to increase my connection numbers. I regret doing this because I get about 15 invites a day. Some of you might think it’s great to collect connections like they’re toy cars, but I like updates from people with whom I actually have something in common. That’s just me. What has made invites from this group reasonably enjoyable is the ability to Ignore 9 out of 10 invites with impunity. When I see a potential connection with no photo, I hit Ignore. First impressions count.

Speaking of photos. When did LinkedIn become a dating service? I’ve seen far too many photos of people who are posting shots from their GQ, In Style, and Glamour days. The rule of thumb is to dress the way you would for your next job. Do you want your photo to imply that your college co-ed days or six-pack abs are a reflection of your professional image? LinkedIn is a professional networking site, not a medium to find your next husband or wife. First impressions count.

In my workshops I see people dressed in various ways, especially during the summer. There are the work-casual types (high five to them), the brand name fanatics (Nike and sports teams are popular), and lastly the I-just-rolled-out-of-bed types. Here’s the thing: if I hear of a job opening, who do you think I’ll think of first? That’s right, the work-casual types. First impressions count.

It’s been told that an employer might make her decision not to hire you within the first 30 seconds of seeing you, based on your first impression. Do you introduce yourself with a smile? Do you shake her hand firmly but without breaking it? Are you dressed appropriately for the interview (shoes matter, too)? Do you wait to be seated? Is your small talk appropriate (you don’t talk about how oppressive the heat is and the bumper-to-bumper traffic and how finding daycare is impossible)? Make sure all of this applies. First impressions count.

Telephone etiquette is often underestimated in importance. I once called a customer to confirm a workshop for which she had signed up. She answered the phone with, “Good afternoon. This is Cherrie McDonald (don’t remember her name). How may I help you?” I was like, Wow, she won’t be out of work very long. A colleague of mine related a time when a customer answered the phone sounding like a chain-smoking truck driver and acted like she was annoyed to be called. Not until the colleague of mine said there was a possible job for her, did she brighten up…a little. First impressions count.

Just remember that people are judging you on your first impression. My daughter’s Facebook page opened my eyes to what her “friends” are writing and made me think that even a social networking site can leave a lasting impression on people. Later I spoke with her, and she responded with, “They’re only my Facebook friends; I wouldn’t write that stuff.” Guilty be association, I told her. Guilty by association. First impressions count.

I have become lazy on LinkedIn

2 Replies

No, I haven’t been slacking off at work or not taking out the trash or neglecting my children. I’ve simply been replying to LinkedIn invitations with a simple Accept, and that’s it. No thank you note; not even something as basic as, “thanks for connecting with me.” Trust me, I feel awful about this.

In my defense, I’ve joined OpenNetworker.com, a service that provides its members with a list of thousands of LinkedIn users. I did this on a recommendation from one of my connections who knows I’ve been yearning to grow my network on LinkedI, so I figured I’d follow her advice and see where it leads me.

OpenNetworker.com has come through on its promise to grow my network; I get at least 100 invites a week. At this writing there are 27 people waiting to be accepted, including someone who is a gun-loving  pit-bull breeder. I’m thrilled to get this volume of invites; but as I mentioned above, I’ve become a lazy slob.

I used to thank everyone who invited me to their network with a quick little note like, “Ed, thanks for inviting me to be in your network. I hope we can collaborate on projects in the future. Bob.” But now I do nothing after I hit Accept.

The reason why I don’t write a thank you note (thanks to OpenNetworker.com) to the slew of invites I receive is because they arrive with the impersonal LinkedIn default message, “I’d like to add you to my professional network on LinkedIn.” Not to sound dramatic, but It’s like returning from a hard day’s work and not getting a kiss from my wife or being ignored by my kids. Where’s the motivation to write a thank you note, I ask you?

What did I expect when I joined OpenNetworker.com—that everyone would take the time to write a personalized invitation to me? No, that would be too much to expect. I know people who use OpenNetworker.com are limited by the technology. They copy and paste a ton of e-mail addresses, separated with commas, in the Add Connections field and blast them off.

So you can imagine the crossroads I’m at. On the one hand I want to grow my network to gain more exposure, but I also want to feel the love that one does when he receives a special note inviting him to join a network. I guess I can’t have it both ways.

I think what we have here is an agreement of mutual laziness. I guess I can live with that. But for those of you who want to invite me to your network and take the time to write a special invitation to little ole me, you darn tootin’ can expect a personalized thank you in return.

LinkedIn is a professional networking site; don’t over-share

Leave a reply

When you hear LinkedIn being called a “social media site,” do you hear fingernails scratching the blackboard? If you do, I’m glad. This means you’re onboard with those who see LinkedIn as a professional networking site. Facebook and Twitter are social media sites and mighty fine ones at that.

What makes LinkedIn a professional networking site are rules of etiquette that are followed by most of its members, one of which is not disclosing too much information or the wrong type of information.

I was delighted to see an article, Are You Over-Sharing on LinkedIn? written by one of my LinkedIn contacts, Laura Smith-Proulx,  that backs up this assertion. Laura does a great job of covering three areas of which you should be cognizant:

  1. Posting negative comments about your job search in a LinkedIn group.
  2. Issuing Status Updates that are unrelated to your professional image.
  3. Misusing LinkedIn Answers – revealing confidential data or using the site for non-professional queries.

Please read Laura’s article if you’re wondering about how to effectively network on LinkedIn for business and the job search without over-sharing.