From time to time I actually read some of the crap the social networking sites keep spewing at me. Today LinkedIn sent me an email with the big reversed-out head that reads : "Must Reads for Fred" -- wow they've noticed me! The title is "The Right and Wrong Reasons for Changing Jobs" -- but that got me wondering what made them think this was a "must read" for me? Anyway, the article has been seen by 360,000 others, so it must be okay. Let's take a look...
LinkedIN thinks 360,000 people, including me are stupid.
The author is celebrated as a "LinkedIN Influencer" and opens by writing
As the job market heats up, it might be time to update your LinkedIn profile. Just updating your profile is a clue to the folks at LinkedIn that you’re thinking of switching jobs, so don’t be surprised if you see more job opportunities pushed your way as a result. But don’t overreact. Leaving a job to minimize pain should not be the primary reason for accepting another job.
So, I ask myself : why this is must-read for me! Who said anything about pain? I haven't had a job for over 40 years, and am in the process of trying to retire to the Buffett life. (Graphic Design is not a job.) The author introduces me to the cliche "Job Seekers Grid" which you've seen ten-thousand times since 1948. I think it's time to move on to the next "must read" article.
Why Did Someone Else Get YOUR Promotion?
I didn't know that I was up for a promotion, but this one is from another "influencer" so I'd better take a look, even though it's only been seen by 116,000 others. The author writes this as if paraphrasing a cheap career guide leaflet you picked up at the Detroit unemployment office. Maybe it is. He gives all the right situations, but never once gives an answer to the headline question. Seriously? The stand-out phrase in this piece is
Be the first to congratulate someone who beat you to a role and thank the respective leader for the opportunity to have been considered. Not only is this, in my view, the right human reaction, but I can almost guarantee you it will work for you in some strange way into the future - remember your reputation will be with that employer forever.
Man, that's heavy-duty.
The Early Entrepreneur - 5: Entrepreneur or Freelancer?
The next "must read" was written by a person named "Ashok Subramanian" -- if this is even a real name or a real person. (I tried to find the person, but Google Image search turned up hundreds -- across three races, two sexes and four continents. LinkedIN says this is a must-read for me, so I'll take the leap of faith.
The big sub-head says : "This post is fifth of a 10 part series on Early Entrepreneurship. Are Freelancers Entrepreneurs?" For some reason, much of the writing actually doesn't make any sense:
Now, a simple definition is that, if you rely, use and sell your own skills or services, then it is freelancing. Now, that means that you will be identified by your skill - like a painter, architect, artist etc.,
The passage ends with a comma, and the next paragraph begins with "On the other hand entrepreneurship is about creating something... " Wow. This is heady stuff. The article goes from nowhere to nowhere, and takes 562 words to get there. You can understand why I'm feeling really fortunate not to have been exposed to the first nine of this series.
He did show me a Dilbert cartoon I hadn't seen in some time, so it does have some value. Maybe it actually does take that long for Dilbert cartoons to get to wherever in the world this author is writing from.
Should I read further? The other titles are :
- 5 effective ways to get big results from small ideas
- How Unsustainable Events Undermine Sustainable Brands
- Happy companies - culture innovators going back to the roots
- The Accidental Entrepreneur: YOU
LinkedIN seems to select the top ten articles ranked in readership to shove off to everyone else, whether they know you or not. There's no clear indication why these articles get so much readership, or why these people have been given such lofty titles and credentials. It seems to defy logic. The only thing I figure is nobody is really reading. Maybe they're running this show totally by robots based on programmed criteria. But if these people were really as successful as we might be lead to believe, would they really be posting these blog entries to LinkedIn? Are they really people? Or are they just re-configured articles from Compuserve's Business-and-Marketing forums. That's exactly what these articles remind me of. We'll never know, will we.
So LinkedIN is bringing us blog postings of people who are just now discovering content that has been floating around for nearly a century. And, I'm wondering, if they know so much, how come they can't send me "must read" info on something that actually applies? They obviously think the people reading their newsletter are stupid.
Seriously? It looks more liks spam to me.
And, thanks for reading