on-line recommendations

An unexpected consequence of expanding my virtual network presence (see previous blog entry) was a recommendation request from one of my contacts. Someone had previously mentioned to me how important recommendations were on Linkedin, but I didn't expect to get a request within a day of creating my profile.

The request raises a new dilemma about recommendations, which we've previously grappled outside of cyber-space. The dilemma, which faces everyone, is the liability associated with providing a reference. These days, it seems like more and more businesses err on the side of caution and only provide the most basic facts in reference checks (yes, s/he worked here; yes, the dates of employment and/or salary data are correct). How, then, will on-line recommendations fit within these parameters? A co-worker and I decided we should run the query by the boss before doing the Linkedin recommendation. We've yet to hear back.

As is often the case these days, I almost immediately received a twitter post with related content (how do other people know what I'm thinking about?) It was a link to a blog entitled "Requested Recommendations on Social Networks: Why I Won't Do It" http://bit.ly/zq4Pp
The author thought that the filters in the Linkedin recommendation process dilute their value. Specifically, he thought the fact that the reviewee can review the submitted recommendation and then accept or reject it meant that there would rarely be objective content in those recommendations that end up being posted. Plus, it seems that providing a bad recommendation about someone in a public forum doesn't reflect particularly well on the contributor either.

The blog raised some interesting points, but they didn't seem unique to on-line recommendation processes. Potential employers face the same challenges getting objective information in hard-copy letters of recommendation and/or telephone references. I am asked to do a lot of letters of recommendation. I wouldn't accept the assignment if I didn't think I could act as a positive reference. That's not to say that I'm not objective in the content of the letter, but I screen out those few requests from people who wouldn't be well served by the information I could provide. As a reference seeker, I would not ask someone unless I felt that, on balance, they could recommend me positively. These same tendencies are going to transfer to technological processes as well. If you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all.

There are ways to improve the content of recommendations so they aren't such puff pieces, which is the overarching criticism in the blogpost. Recommendations that include specific examples of projects or outcomes will give a prospective employer better information than generalized statements like "s/he's a real people person." And, of course, people are trying to be creative in the way in which they obtain information. It seems like it's standard practice these days to Google job applicants to see what turns up. Sources with less filtering and more organic content generation, such as blogs and Twitter, may be the next wave. Untimately, we may end up being own own best (or worst) reference.