It is always with the best intentions that the worst work is done. — Oscar Wilde

Before you undo everything that you have done to build a robust social network with hundreds, perhaps thousands, of friends, followers, and online connections, it might be time to ask yourself about your intent. After all, intent tends to be the most overlooked portion of social networking, much like communication.

In fact, if you are defriending, especially if you consider yourself a reformed friending enthusiast, it might be paramount to making the same mistake twice. Sure, Charlene Li is all for it and Social Citizens suggests the trend is to defriend, despite Facebook pulling the plug on Whopper sacrifices. Robert Scoble recently went out of his way to “remove the chaff” from his Twitter account on Sunday.

“I’ve analyzed the 600 people who unfollowed yesterday and the IQ of my followers just went up 217%!” he said.

But does it make sense? It depends, and not on numbers.

It depends on your intent, which is best defined by you and/or your employer’s objectives and the purpose you engaged in social networking as it pertains to each social network. So you might ask yourself, beyond those you know, who are these people?

Listeners. People on whom who you have made a positive impression, which prompted them to follow you. It might have been someone who heard you speak or read something you wrote and they hope to hear/read more.

Neighbors. Social networks, especially niche social networks, are much like neighborhoods. People who live within close proximity like to know their neighbors. It’s the same online, except geography is replaced by “topicography.”

Bloggers. Bloggers who are always looking for something they can write about, including you and/or your company.

Prospects. People who are considering you or your company for future work, possibly because someone within your social network referred you. The opportunity might not be right now, but they see potential.

Evangelists. People who, for some reason or another, feel a connection to you or your company. They want to promote you and/or your business to other people.

This doesn’t mean you have to follow everybody or accept every friend request.

Consider your intent within each social network. Is it to find potential candidates for employers? Is it to find potential employers for candidates? Is it to network with colleagues and share tips, tools, and ideas? Is it to gain exposure for yourself or your company? Is it to find someone with skill sets that you need? Is it to stay connected with friends and family?

Then whatever the intent, do that. Just never make your intent something as ridiculous as collecting as many reciprocal friends and followers as possible or following something as fleeting as a trend. It’s a waste of time and distracts from developing relationships you might value. In extreme cases, some professionals have even catered to popular strangers who will never be their friends, never buy their product or service, and never do anything except attempt to exert influence over them.

The best approach when you join a social network (and I’ve joined several to test the waters for others), starts with observing what occurs in that space. From these observations, you can decide who and how you want to engage people.

For example, on BlogCatalog.com (which is a social network for bloggers), my intent is to meet and connect with a diverse range of bloggers as part of our blogger relations efforts. So, I maintain an open door policy — if they friend me, I friend them.

On Twitter, I tend to employ qualifiers. They might be in a communication-related field or industry I am working in. They might reside in my city. They might have already engaged me on another social network or on Twitter. They might have started following me and I found their thread interesting enough to read.

On Facebook, I tend to have a closed-door policy. I generally only friend people I know or have engaged on other social networks or on my blog. However, had I friended 5,000 people, I doubt I’d be unfriending them all now, simply because they decided to invest some time with me.

Of course, there may be other tools soon enough. Some people are developing applications so you can follow an abbreviated list beyond your public networks with nobody the wiser. Huh.

Views: 72

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Rich, great post. Tuesday is a good day to have the gray matter matter. So, off on a tangent...

I think half the problem lies in the term "friend" to define a relationship which more often than are not based on friendship at all. It's interesting that we are being asked to give more thought to our "communication" when half the problem in understanding what the hell is going on stems from our hijacking language.

Of course, language is evolving and changing all of the time. And so it should. We have to adapt our language and come up with new words to describe new things, new relationships and new experiences. But when we take existing words to describe things they ain't, especially if those words are laden with emotion and connotation, we only have ourselves to blame when the babble leads to shallow communication and depreciating online relationships.

I remember, and it wasn't that long ago, when being "all-a-twitter about cleaning out the closet and having a gay day doing it" had nothing to do with online social activism, promiscuous linking or obsessive self-expression.

So, rather than "friends" being used to describe our proximity on social networks, which granted could morph into a healthy and productive friendship -- I suggest we come up with something else. How about "Node-buddy?"

Wanna be my Node-buddy, Rich?
Ami,

It goes well beyond semantics and highjacking language.

Some of the most popular people online borrow entire definitions, introducing ideas like 'conversation' with consumers (which came from advertising), 'authenticity' (which came from business), and 'brand' (which was never intended to mean identity), claiming it to be original thought leadership.

Nobe-buddy? Egad! That's very funny though.

You know, I think it might be just the opposite. We're placing too much value on the terms that social networks prescribe. Friends, followers, etc. don't mean the same thing in that context.

Maybe we might ask ourselves if we went to a luncheon and somebody, who we didn't know, offered a business card, would we refuse and then spit in their eye? Or perhaps, accept it and then rip it up for the bemusement of our friends as soon as they turned around? A few might, I suppose (most of us wait until we get home).

All in all, I suppose part of what I'm proposing is that we might conduct ourselves online like we might conduct ourselves face-to-face, because unlike face-to-face, online is almost permanent and certainly searchable.

Best,
Rich

Reply to Discussion

RSS

Subscribe

All the recruiting news you see here, delivered straight to your inbox.

Just enter your e-mail address below

Webinar

RecruitingBlogs on Twitter

© 2024   All Rights Reserved   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Privacy Policy  |  Terms of Service