“Welcome to LinkedIn! It’s a cesspool,”

Your co-worker needn't have been "half-joking" for LinkedIn has degenerated in the senses of the number of users who are arrogant, ignorant, self-important, abusive, aggressive and otherwise, completely unprofessional. Many are dishonest, fail to understand the distinction between an issue and a person, and possibly worst of all, whilst being only too willing to criticise prolifically, rarely if ever make any substantive and worthwhile contribution of their own.

I had a following of several thousand on LinkedIn, built over several years, but deleted my account as a result of the degeneration of posts on the platform. I had already left Facebook and Twitter, (long before the latter became 'X' - what a stupid name), for similar reasons.

I admit that I consider 'networking' to be over-rated, unless you are someone who puts their energy into career climbing - as opposed to developing increased competence, skills and holistic understanding of your particular field or endeavour.

My observation, after 50 years in the paid workforce and over a decade of unpaid participation and contribution to my areas of expertise and practice, is that possibly 20% of the employed are actually as competent as their roles require or suggest.

A proportion of the other 80% are trapped' in work offering poor conditions, poor rewards, little or no opportunity, and an unfair and demeaning status in the community. It is hardly surprising therefore, that many of them complete their tasks with as little effort as possible and not for a minute longer than they must. Nor can they reasonably be blamed for acting in that way.

However, a significant percentage of that other 80% actively and intentionally put most of their energies into constructing an image that will attract favourable attention from superordinates and result in their promotion or offers of advancement to other more senior and satisfying roles. This group will seize every opportunity to 'network', particular when the opportunity is funded by their employer. They will atempt to get their name on every project or paper of significance, even if they have made little or no contribution to it. They will talk often about 'team', whilst exhibiting no understanding of what it means, not least illustrated by their keen willingness to take singular or major credit for results which are far more the product of others than any contribution of their own.

These career climbers will make a name for themselves by ensuring a place in the lime-light, speaking at conferences but rarely offering anything new, writing papers that regurgitate what is already well known and understood and cultivating favour with those already in high level or other positions of influence or power. Inevitably, most of them do rise to the top but with neither the moral compass, ethical practice or anything approaching the competence that ought to be expected at the highest levels or senior and well rewarded positions in any organisation.

The only significant exception that I have seen, to this means of progression, is that of the employee who stays in one organisation, usually operating well below what ought to be a required standard, but nevertheless receiving opportunities to step in to acting roles when their superordinate or similar is ill, promoted, leaves the organisation or in some other way causes their position to be vacant. All too often the original occupant does not return to the position and so the drone that has acted in it is suddenly, (and usually without appropriate competence), given permanence in the role. This type of 'vacancy' can come about very often and so it is not unusual that someone with competence barely sufficient for a base role, can rise to and be not uncommonly found at very senior level.

There is much more I could say in relation to this issue. Not least are poor selection processes, nepotism, a flawed qualification system and both individual and organisational biases. However, they are perhaps better dealt with at another time.

However, in my view the reality is that 'networking' is over-rated, often counter-productive, provides a poor return on investment and encourages an unfortunate attitude and motivation which lowers general levels of expertise, impedes the careers of those who offer most value, expertise and competence, and results in not only ineffective 'leadership' but in poor character traits among those in senior positions.

*** I do acknowledge that what I've written contains generalisations and that there are many who network that are worthy of promotion, senior positions or leadership. There are, of course, always 'exceptions that prove the rule'. ***

Take care. Stay safe. ☮️