I have 500+ LinkedIn connections — yay me?

Contrary to the infinite stream of breathless hype coming from Silicon Valley, most changes — even in the tech world — happen gradually, and only with the benefit of time are we able to recognize their true impact. True disruption only comes around once in a blue moon. And sometimes it turns out to be a completely different kind of disruption than was originally intended. Case in point: LinkedIn.

First, some ancient history. Back in the early aughts, I was in Boston, hustling to make a living (I’m still hustling, just in a different place and with a few more tricks up my sleeve). During one particularly exciting period, I was running a startup with a very talented group of people, and we were doing our part, in a small way, to forge the next generation of web apps. Maybe I’ll tell that story another time. Anyway, at some point along the way I was introduced to an entrepreneur who was working on a new concept that was gaining some buzz. His idea: create the world’s first online networking platform for professionals, helping you use your connections to “tap the full potential of your social capital.” He was struggling to get the company funded beyond the first round — this was at the beginning of the dot-com crash, for those who remember that difficult time — and was looking for some help in finalizing the product. We did a deal and my team helped build out the app.

Wow, you’re thinking, you had the opportunity to work with Reid Hoffman on the first version of LinkedIn?! Well, no, unfortunately not. This was Cambridge, not Palo Alto, and the entrepreneur in question was a local TV news anchor-turned-lawyer who was a first time founder, but had the right combination of optics and connections to make a credible run at such an ambitious startup. The site went live two full years before LinkedIn was launched. It was pretty cool, too, way ahead of its time in terms of user interface and back-end analytics. Keep in mind, this was four years before a certain student further down the Charles River launched thefacebook.com to rate the hotness of Harvard co-eds. And the de facto search engine of the day, also a Massachusetts product, was something called Alta Vista. Ah, the good old days…

Anyway, suffice it to say, for a young go-getter who was fascinated with network theory and the potential of this thing called the Internet, this was pretty heady stuff. I was thrilled to be a part of the effort… at least until the money ran out. When that happened, the venture was shelved, and we all moved on to bigger and better things. Given this experience, you can imagine my reaction some time later, when I started getting emails asking me to “link in” with colleagues on a “brand new” type of networking platform for professionals.

Fast forward to today…

Until about a year ago, I had basically ignored LinkedIn for a decade. I would go to it every once in a while, out of boredom more than anything else. I would click Like and post comments from time to time. But I found the user interface to be super clunky, and I was confused by all the connection requests from people I barely knew, whereas my actual colleagues were not using it in a way that was relevant to me. It wasn’t clear how it would help me unlock opportunities via my professional network.

Then things started to change. LinkedIn vastly improved their UX, and introduced an impressive mobile app. They made a strong push to increase engagement, most likely in order to make the company more attractive for a sale (they were eventually bought by Microsoft). They started making interesting suggestions based on my profile. It seemed like it was becoming imperative, not only to be on LinkedIn, but to be active on LinkedIn.

There was just one problem. Though I had signed up on the platform soon after it launched, and dutifully entered a bunch of professional connections, I still only had 143 people in my network. This was because, as early users of the site will recall, you originally had to “prove” that you had worked or studied with someone, in order to maintain the quality of the network. But at some point, they decided to dispense with that notion, and instead encourage people to simply connect, connect, connect. Suddenly it became a status symbol to have 500+ connections. I started to feel like a slacker, and said to myself:

“How can I be taken seriously if I’ve only developed meaningful working relationships with a measly 143 people? I must do something about this, stat!”

So I started sending connection requests to everyone under the sun: random people that I spoke with for 2 minutes at networking events, old friends from school, neighbors, real estate brokers, folks who are vaguely in the same business as me, even a few competitors. I’ve also received many requests from people that I’ve never met before, who were clearly on their own quest toward 500+. Back in the old days, I would have ignored these requests, but today I automatically accept them, because sure, why not?

Paradoxically, I’ve been somewhat reluctant to connect with actual coworkers — people with whom I have current, in-depth working relationships — out of respect, because I don’t want them to feel like I’m trying to use them for networking purposes. I’ll give you a moment to think about that.

It seems to me that LinkedIn is little more than a dating site for professionals these days. If that’s its purpose, so be it. But it appears that the original intent has been lost along the way. Wasn’t it supposed to be a way to replicate online what has always happened offline: helping people find opportunities via their networks, based on real work experience, genuine relationships, and transitive trust? I suppose that is happening to some extent, but it feels like this set of goals has been overshadowed by what has largely become a game of self-promotion and one-upsmanship. Basically it’s about who has the loudest megaphone, not who brings commitment and depth of experience. In this age of fake news, I reckon it’s a sign of the times.

A few years ago, I made an attempt to “fix” some of the shortcomings of LinkedIn. The idea was to create a repository of honest, detailed feedback between real coworkers, so that prospective employers could get a much more accurate impression of someone than the idealized résumé or LinkedIn profile. It tested the very delicate line between privacy and transparency, and in the end, even giving users full control over their information, it turned out to be too touchy to work as a business concept. I even spoke with LinkedIn about it, but they didn’t want to go there. So I pivoted the technology to a B2B platform, which was much more viable and paved the way for employer-based feedback systems that are quickly becoming the norm today. Lesson learned: when you’re inside a company, you can expect your performance to be dissected six ways from Sunday, and that data belongs to your corporate masters, not you. Any attempt to make that information portable will be largely futile. There are now some popular apps that let people whisper anonymously about their coworkers, which just makes me shake my head… gossip with zero accountability or recourse: is this progress?

But I digress. The point is that LinkedIn no longer seems to care, if they ever did, about real work relationships (and yes, I know about Endorsements, which is a step in the right direction, but it’s still pretty weak). Today’s LinkedIn is really just about helping people get gigs through personal marketing. Not that there’s anything wrong with that.

Apparently Facebook is getting into the professional networking game now too. Maybe they’ll do a better job, but I’m not holding my breath. Do you really want your nutty uncle commenting on your work-related posts? The business model for any free networking service is to perpetually increase the number of users, connections, clicks, posts — anything that can be sold to third parties. In other words, quantity trumps quality (pun very much intended).

In conclusion, LinkedIn is a valuable platform that serves a useful purpose, and I have nothing against it. It has become the primary go-to source of information about professionals, as well as offering some really brilliant content and interaction. Through impressive execution, they have surged past the competition and solidified their market dominance to the point where it’s difficult to imagine any challenger taking them on in a serious way, though I hope people keep trying.

But is LinkedIn a truly innovative and disruptive platform? Certainly they have changed the game of recruitment, enabling companies and job seekers to extend their reach to much broader audiences. If it’s depth you’re looking for, though, I would argue that they abandoned that objective long ago. After all, I now have 500+ first level connections, some of whom are very impressive people who I’m happy to be linked to. But have I really worked with all of those 500+ people, and can they attest to my skills and values? Hmmm.

Finally, I will throw out a challenge. The opinions I’ve expressed in this article may put me in the minority, but I’m sure I’m not alone. Do you think we can do better than LinkedIn to facilitate professional networking? Is there value to be gained from building and traversing network graphs that are based on genuine work experiences, rather than unfettered self-promotion? If so, what are the use cases? Who pays for it and how? Can it be done in a way that respects privacy yet provides more insight into a person’s essential professional identity?

I’m convinced that it’s only a matter of time before we have a truly disruptive, blockchain-based, AI-powered system that mitigates human bias and discrimination, and matches people with work opportunities in a way that makes LinkedIn look like a glorified grocery store bulletin board. If you’re already working on this or wish to explore the concept, let me know, I want in!

Thank you for reading this.