Guess I’ll be eating alone
So, like pretty much everyone else, I’m awed by Keith Ferrazzi’s ability to network. I haven’t read his book yet, but I’ve read the Inc profile and I’ve subscribed to his blog. While I can’t say I’m inspired to try to replicate his networking success, I am impressed by the sheer number of power brokers that he’s "met" in such short order. (But then again, I’m easily impressed.)
I decided to try to add him as a contact in LinkedIn. I figured it’d be interesting to see if he even uses the service. Well, he does have a profile on LinkedIn, and I’m three degrees away from him, via (not surprisingly) Buzz Bruggeman and Steve Rubel. But the dude isn’t open to receiving requests for contact. Ironic, eh?
On one hand, I understand that his schtick is all about meeting people face to face. But even so, why eliminate an entire networking channel, especially when you’re using it? Guess I better read the book to find out why…
Related Stories
POSTED IN: career, management, web/tech
4 opinions for Guess I’ll be eating alone
Lisa Haneberg
Mar 27, 2005 at 10:35 pm
Bren:
Interesting thoughts on this much buzzed book/fella. I wholeheartedly agree with Keith Ferrazzi’s suggestion that our purpose when networking should be to contribute to others….
I’m not so sure about his notion that introverts will “enjoy” getting out there more once they do it, though. Perhaps I am reading this wrong. I think introverts can learn to appreciate networking and think it was a good use of their time, but they may never enjoy it. He admits to being an extrovert and this comment is coming from that perspective. I’m not sure he understands the differences.
Sounds like an interesting book overall.
Josh Kaufman
Mar 28, 2005 at 8:48 am
Just picked up the book yesterday… 30 pages in at the moment, and so far I’m impressed. Will let you know how it develops!
Peter Kazanjy
Mar 28, 2005 at 10:21 pm
I haven’t read the book yet, but in Ferrazzi’s defense, it’s important to think about the way that these online networking sites end up at their extremes. If you make yourself a super-node (which some of my friends who work at LinkedIn have become in short order with 400 odd links), and don’t limit the ways in which you can be approached, invariably you will be overun by people trying to pass across your node on their way to a target.
You’ve gone and uncovered a reason why eBay works all the way around, and why LinkedIn works better for recruiting than other purposes. Because eBay has their feedback system, and both sellers and buyers are judged on their performance in a transaction, both have a reason to perform. With LinkedIn, there’s no karma system. So there’s a strong incentive for people to send out lots of requests (self-interest) but no incentive to field them (in that there’s no tracking of that sort of performance). It’s like littering and paying for firemen and police: if there’s no accountability, it’s an invitation to socially loaf.
One situation in which this doesn’t happen is recruiting, where both the requester and target have a lot of upside in the transaction, and there’s little downside for the connectors. Who doesn’t want to get a friend a job? As for opening up your buddy to a sales call…well that’s another thing entirely. That costs the connector relationship capital, and for what upside? Again, you don’t get brownie points for sending people along, because LinkedIn doesn’t track that (well, they do, but for internal metrics, not for public consumption).
I’ll own that this doesn’t necessarily apply to Ferrazzi’s not being open to contact, rather than passing people along. However, with some sort of robust karma system (that is, karma on performance as a LinkedIn member, rather than karma on job performance, which they have in the form of job testimonials) you might duck both issues. I.e., “Can’t send requests if you aren’t open to any” or some sort of market system “you get one request for every one you field or pass along”.
This wouldn’t effect LinkedIn’s business model either, given that their current revenue model is a craigslist one: most functions are just there to bring eyeballs, and we charge the deep pockets (employers) to use the one function they need (job posting). Right now, LinkedIn’s model (outside of recruiting, that is) relies on the favor economy, and unfortunately the favors don’t have any currency.
Of course, with all that said, Reid Hoffman and company are very smart, and i’m sure they’ve already thought of all these things, and more, and included information i haven’t. On the whole, the offering is quite useful, i find, if as a new way of stalking people alone (you thought googling potential dates was fun? How about getting made fun of at a party because you’re linkedin profile is out of date? Probably not a party you want to be at huh? Happended to me at St. Paddy’s day this year…; )
adbomaha
Mar 31, 2005 at 2:47 pm
As someone who has been on the receiving end of Mr Ferazzi’s terrier-like networking intensity, I can only say that it’s a double-edged sword. I used to work at a well-known consulting Firm in a practice that had a well-known figurehead. The figurehead was getting hounded by Keith, and implored me to talk to him instead.
When I did get in touch, there was requisite exchanging of info, but nothing I would say as helpful, altruistic, or out of the ordinary from his side. I had the distinct impression that the point was to add another name at [firm name here] to the Rolodex, not actually meet someone cool and do something cool with them. Glad I could be a check in the box on the to-do list, but it was hardly an altruistic act on anyone’s part.
There are always those people who are aggressive networkers. He’s one of them, and it’s hard to see what ’s different about him than the traditional show business business card collector.
God bless him, but it’s not like he’s invented the iPod here.