 |
A debate regarding the Quality vs. Quantity [QvQ] issue has been going on for quite sometime now on the LinkedIn YahooGroups [MyLinkedInPowerForum and LinkedInnovators]. Lots of inividual opinions about how people tackle the issue themselves. |
One of my connections on LinkedIn, Barbara Holtzman, who is the Founding Partner & Senior Associate of the BDH Group, had the following to say on the LinkedInnovators YahooGroup:
” There’s an American/English saying, “Beating a dead horse.” It’s starting to apply to the QvQ debate. Why do people care? Humans as a species are caring creatures and we each have our own list of things we care about, sometimes passionately, especially when it comes to relationships – which is what networks are sets of.
Those who say you can’t maintain active relationships with 100, 1,000, or 10,000, whatever the number they state, are probably correct. So? Someone I haven’t heard from in a few months asked me if I knew anyone who might want to buy his art, and I do – but I haven’t spoken to her in oh, maybe 5 years. Neither time span doesn’t at all mean I wasn’t pleased he asked, or that she wasn’t thrilled to hear from me again (she was) and is, indeed, interested in this project. Deep, shallow, what does it matter? Two people got connected, and they probably wouldn’t have without me.
Under some of the criteria listed here, she wouldn’t even have been in my address book. Most than three, six, twelve months, no job, no deals, no whatever? Dump ‘em! By the way, if you set up your contacts in Outlook, Act!, or similar programs in a “tickler” file, which salespeople use to make sure they remember to follow-up, then you can check and see whether you’ve been in touch or not. The journal in Outlook also helps track contact.
This timed method may work for some, but it doesn’t work for me. I’ve met the most amazing people through online networking, some I see, some I speak to on the phone, some I email – and others are just there, on the list, waiting until I THINK OF SOMETHING I CAN DO FOR THEM. I do give to get, I’m not completely altruistic, but giving is the most important piece of it for me – not any quid pro quo.
Perhaps that’s a dividing line between the quality-ists and the quantity-ists (better terms altogether than some we’ve used). The quality folks believe that it’s better to only have a few people you can know really well, and keep out everyone else, or that if someone can’t do something for you, then you don’t need them, and the quantity folks believe that there’s no such thing as someone it isn’t worth it to know, and that just because you can’t do a deal this week doesn’t mean they won’t ever be of value in some way. They may also be motivated by the thrill of having a big first level, just as the quality-ists are motivated by having a small, manageable list, and emphasize but “pure,” if you will, list.
Both sides have positives and negatives – and if you heard judgment in any of that, it’s in your head, not mine. This is the focal point of the “why do people care” argument – if you think I’ve improperly synthesized everything that’s been said about the topic, well, that’s what a discussion is for.
Which can go on forever, god help the moderators – but it seems to have taken on an unpleasant undertone – anger, that one way is right and the other wrong, as if to say, “why can’t you on the other side see the point” of whatever the one side is saying about itself at the moment? Since there is, arguably, no “right” way to network, only your own way, and it could be a very personal method, not to mention the personal nature of networking itself, how could there be a “right” way or a “wrong” way? “
Thank you for the permission for letting me share this Barbara!
July 31st, 2005
 |
- Job-seeking? Head-hunting? Online Networking? by Joy Davia on the Rochester Democrat & Chronicle. The article is obviously LinkedIn-centric [doesn't even mention that there are other portals out there!] but is written well and is insightful – as compared to some other web article we’ve seen!
|
“But there’s another tool, used by headhunters and job-seekers alike, that’s gaining in popularity: online networking sites, such as LinkedIn.com” And then there are others…
“Still, I wonder whether such a service would be useful for non-techy people.
Top industries in my network of more than 6,000 people – based on just two connections – were mostly IT, computer and telecommunications people. (But that could just be me.)“
There’s a lot of variety there! I am a designer / innovation consultant / photographer / business networking consultant and have been using the system for a year now – I have made contact with and read profiles of hundreds of people – from almost all industries and sectors.
LinkedInNotes Blog by Richard Upton. Notes about LinkedIn, the online business networking tool. Contains posts like:
“LinkedIn Only a Tool for within the Larger Networking Process” and
“LinkedIn Tips: Step-by-Step“.
Network with you? I don’t even know you! from The Career Journal. The articles starts with:
“A little over a month ago, an online service that manages Ben Harel’s business contacts sent out one of those automatic emails asking his contacts to update their personal information in his digital address book. Such procedures are supposed to freshen up the Rolodex and may even encourage a little reunion among old business acquaintances. But in this case at least one recipient — me — didn’t have the foggiest notion where he could have met Mr. Harel.
So I left a message for Mr. Harel to call me back. No need to explain who I was because he apparently knew this. “You know who I am, right?” I asked him when he returned my call.
“The truth of the matter?” he asked sheepishly. “No.” “
The 10 Secrets of a Master Networker from Inc.com.
“Keith Ferrazzi needs two PalmPilots to keep track of all his contacts, people like Bill Clinton and Michael Milken. But there’s far more to cracking the inner circle of the power elite than just taking names.
Keith Ferrazzi enters your life like a circus coming to town — the two ringing cell phones, the two PalmPilots, the multiple conversations in which he seems to be listening and talking simultaneously. The way he walks and looks, all tanned and fit, with the styled hair and custom suit and black Prada shoes. The deals that are hanging in the air, the favors being extended or secured, the sideshows, the laughter, the juggling. That irresistible balloon of energy.“
Never Eat Alone Blog. Keith Ferrazzi’s blog – with some good informational articles. This is what Keith has to say in one of his posts about LinkedIn:
“In most of my speaking and writing about building relationships for success, I focus on helping people acquire a relationship mindset through understanding and practicing four fundamental principles.
1. You can’t get there alone.
2. Business relationships are personal relationships, which are built upon developing real
3. Intimacy through sharing passions and struggles and
4. Giving without keeping score.” The complete POST.
July 25th, 2005
The My openBC Group has been officially launched today!
If you are an openBC user, join the first openBC YahooGroup “My openBC“.
Feel free to first visit the Home Page of My openBC and join by sending an e-mail.
Description of the My openBC Group:
“‘My openBC’ is an open discussion group for networkers on the openBC platform.
This is ‘the’ forum to:
- discuss ways to maximize benefits arising out of being a member of openBC,
- share observations about openBC and its features,
- share success stories and experiences,
- discuss best practices to make excellent use of the openBC experience,
- assist openBC to be a customer-centric innovator by sharing new ideas and suggestions for enhancements.
We are, indeed, Networking People!“
Currently David Regler is co-moderating alongwith me and we would welcome a couple of more people to be part of the Moderator Panel. If you would be interested, please get in touch with us via e-mail.
July 21st, 2005
 |
Some users, after connecting directly – on openBC – tend to turn off the “Receive Private Messages” option. For example, once ‘A’ is connected with ‘B’ and ‘A’ has access to all/some contact information of ‘B’ [depending on the options that 'B' has set], ‘B’ might turn off “Receive Private Messages from A” – assuming that since e-mail information has already been made available, there is no need to receive messages on the openBC platform. |
Till recently, I assumed that this would be a good option – to minimize e-mail on the openBC platform and divert it to my inbox. But I still refrained from using it since I was not aware of other implications. Glad that I did not use it!
I have not once used the “Introduce Contact” feature on openBC. Just today, a friend of mine needed to get in touch with a Recruiter / Placement Consultant. I had 9 of them in my network. Instead of e-mailing them separately – which would have entailed my copying the link to my friend’s profile, digging out each Recruiter’s e-mail id and writing 9 separate e-mails. Instead, I decided to use the “Introduce Contact” feature. My only inhibition was that if I introduced ‘A’ to ‘B’ but ‘B’ was not interested, I would be in a bit of a soup because then I would have to personally write to ‘A’ intimating the negative response from ‘B’.
To my surprise, I discovered that there were two options – I could send a “two-way” introduction [where both parties would receive the e-mail] or I could send a “one-way” e-mail – where only ‘B’ would know of ‘A’s’ need and if interested, they could directly get in touch with ‘A’!
One of the potential recipients had, unfortunately turned off the receipt of Private Messages, so the system was unable to deliver the message to that person.
So, in my opinion, to maximize the benefits of the openBC system, it would be better to keep the receipt of private messages functional on your profile. Otherwise you never know what you might be missing.
July 21st, 2005
”