I was threatened with lawyers when I said I wasn't pleased and wanted to quit my account) I can believe everything evil about LinkedIn.
I hope if anyone out there is considering a paid account they will call me and ask me about my experience, that is all!!…
he number of Groups people can join (and why?) to 50. Sounds like a lot I know but there are very similar group names with small memberships so its likely you need to join them all the connect with your target interest group.
And the real stupid thing is that LinkedIn will remove you from your latest joined groups in 30 days if you have not chosen the ones you want to remove yourself from within 10 days and done so....
But thats OK because LinkedIn plan to install new functionality and widgets so your user experienced in groups is enhanced.
I have over 4800 connections on LinkedIn and 72 Group memberships and I pay for a premium service and you can probably tell Im not impressed with their decision. Why cant they let me stick with what Ive got in Group memberships. What affect does it have to LinkedIn?
Confused.com! What happened to Web 2.0 LinkedIn?
Anyway the action by LinkedIn confirms my decision to create Executive Careers Network (ECN). Here it is an open social network. Create as many groups as you like and join as many as you like. In fact why dont you email your fellow group members at LinkedIn and suggest they come over to ECN and have a modern internet experience.…
guy gave an interview. This guy has been dumped by the national team.
You have to think about the ages and maturity of some of these individuals, whilst balancing against the holier than though rhetoric from the media. I can understand if it really stuffs up with a sponsorship. ie a footballer here got busted for drink driving, whilst you cannot condone this, as it really is a stupid and dangerous thing to do. Luckily enough he didn't hurt himself or anyone else in the process. Unfortunately for him the main sponsor of his club was the TAC (Traffic Accident Commission) and as he was a representative of his brand.. the club.. they pulled the sponsorship, a million dollars. What do you do to this kid? Hang him out to dry.
Can you have different rules for superstars than others? I'd like to think not, but is that reality? Bottom line is, I think.. what affect will the behaviour/decision making have on your brand and organisation as a whole. If by a superstar smoking pot will look like your company encourages such a thing, (and that's not what you want as you market is young people) then act on it. However, I know a country whose commander in chief was busted actively encouraging adultery and whilst not inhaling, didn't discourage pot smoking, yet was still THE figure head of a country, for quite a while afterwards.…
is a legitimate question. If it assumes the best interests of the other person whatever follows in conversation will lead to a mutual understanding and respect that makes deciding not to work together -- or moving forward, whatever the case may be -- an easy decision to agree on.
The problem is that the question is more likely asked so that the recruiter can position him or herself favorably in the mind of the candidate. By virtue of the fact the question was asked as a social engineering tactic, the negative stereotype of recruiters is reinforced at some level of both parties' consciousness.
So, framing the question is important because the truth of the matter is recruiters have a self-interest which, at the outset at least, has nothing to do with the candidate at all. Referrals, inbound calls and cousin Vinneys aside, most candidates are qualified in or out based on our assessment of how well they fit the faceless, nameless genetically-perfect profile and/or the extent to which we think we can persuade them to align their interests with ours. Say it ain't so.
Surely it is easier to call a person and just come straight out with it... "Bob, if I told you that I was a recruiter calling you about a potentially dynamite job that you appear to be best suited for you'd probably tell me to go shove it and hang up on me, right?...Oh, I won't tell you I'm a recruiter then."
As stupid as it sounds, in my experience at least, this is a better approach to neutralize the knee-jerk negativity we fully expect and implied in asking, "What do you not like about working with Recruiters?”
Some recruiters are plain daft in their assumption that they can immediately position themselves as "trusted advisors" from the get-go. Trust is something that strengthens over time, built on each transaction and a shared confidence that the other person is looking out for them.
Without the maturing of a relationship, I don't think you can have that level of "intimacy" with anyone, let alone someone whose initial approach was based on their self-interest, not mine. "Speak softly - carry a big stick" sums it up, doesn't it?
For people who are honest, sincere, professional and yada-yada-yada, being up-front, candid and transparent is second nature. It is why they can overcome the initial hesitation candidates understandably feel. It is that personal presence that enables the meaningful relationships that can span all of five minutes or fifty years.
As Mother used to say: "You can't teach a man how to be a mensch but you can show him by example."
She also used to say: "Don't ask stupid questions. Not everyone thinks like you."…