As my father (a reference librarian) used to say, “You don’t need to know the answer yourself. You just need to know how to find the answer you need.”

Tony essentially models LinkedIn as a cocktail mixer of people he’s met, reserving his recommendations to people he trusts. This model allows him allows him to expand his reach to locate resources within his network who can answer his question. However, number of “connections” does not confer expertise on any single person.

From a social capital perspective, he’s expanded his potential access to information–without immediately creating deeper social capital. He still must find reasons for casual acquaintances and 2nd level contacts to help him locate the answer he needs.

His approach aligns closely what I’ve described many times here. LinkedIn itself is just a network.

• Using Status Updates to Mobilize Social Capital
• LinkedIn Wants You to Learn Social Capital Theory
• Social Networks vs. Social Capital
• What Should My Network Look Like?

If you use any social network passively, you’ll see few benefits, but if you actively invest time into it, you will see a significant return.

Social media and social networking tools can provide a space for learning, but they themselves are only tools. People have to actually use the platforms (to find and answer questions . . . as well as participate in collaborative learning).

From what I’ve seen so far, many learning practitioners have launched a social media tool with a Field of Dreams mindset: “If I create this cool social media learning space, then my learners will find ways to learn together through it.” That approach glosses over fundamental instructional design issues.

Social media provides a platform, but the web-applications themselves shouldn’t be confused with true social capital–the ability to locate and mobilize resources within your network to achieve a goal.

The learners want to achieve goals–such as mastering a skill, solving a problem, or finding an on-demand answer.

Yes, social media can create a space where it will be possible to learn collaboratively. However, that learning doesn’t magically happen. There are several key criteria that must be met:

• The answer (or help) must have already been created; OR
• People must be available and willing to provide on-demand help.

Learn how the two concepts fit together in this newly-uploaded video:

Making Smart Connections

Making Smart Connections from Bill Sherman on Vimeo.

I’d love to hear your feedback.

The company must balance three types of capital:

• Financial capital–cashflow to pay employees, vendors, etc.;
• Human capital–experience and expertise; and
• Social capital–networks and connections.

When layoffs happen, the company preserves financial capital and sacrifices its access to both human capital and social capital. The loss of human capital is obvious. You have fewer hands to get work done. However, the loss of social capital can be even more critical.

The people let-go during layoffs may possess crucial cross-departmental connections and knowledge (people who serve as internal bridges). More importantly, the company also loses the social capital embedded within these connections with clients, vendors, suppliers, channel partners, etc.

1. Concept–what will you be known for?
2. Passion–are you passionate about the concept?
3. Market–who wants to hear your thoughts on the topic?

In the ideal world, you have a concept that you’re passionate about, and a very receptive audience that wants to hear/buy your services (the more influential the audience . . . the better).

Thought leadership marketing takes a long time to implement, however like any investment, the rewards compound year after year.

Dr. Nan Lin,  professor of Sociology at Duke University, defines social capital as the ability to locate and mobilize resources within your network. It’s not just who you know, it’s who will actually invest effort to help you towards your goals.

In this video, Common Craft teaches the basics of social capital theory. If you listen carefully, you’ll hear aspects of Nan Lin’s social capital model, Ronald Burt’s structural holes theory, and Mark Granovetter’s “strength of weak ties.” I don’t know how successful LinkedIn will be with their education campaign, but it’s good to see such a savvy attempt.

Thanks to Matt Homann who pointed out this video in his blog, the [non]billable hour.

The premise is simple, and it relies on the “Strength of Weak Ties” with a digital twist.

1. Reporters/writers go on to “Help a Reporter” and describe the type of interview they would like to conduct.
2. The site aggregates these requests and sends out an e-mail blast 3x/day.
3. If you have a relevant story or quote to share, you can send it to the reporter (who may choose a follow-up interview).

Can this process be abused? Certainly, PR spammers could swarm every request with non-relevant responses that promote themselves or their company. However, if used judiciously, it can increase the quality of reporting (diverse interviewees and insights).

The tool allows reporters to expand their virtual networks (spanning structural holes) and still meet aggressive writing deadlines. In three months, it’s gone from a simple list to over 12,000 subscribers.

The tool creates an opportunity to create a relevant relationship. However, that’s all it is . . . an opportunity. It’s a social networking tool, but it’s not a social capital too. If you reply to a reporter with junk, you’ll hurt yourself more than you’ll help. You still need to invest time to create a meaningful relationship.

However, if you’ve got a great story that fits a reporter’s current need, you can be a hero. Think of it as “speed-dating” for the journalist/PR world.

• Pass out a non-ending stream of business cards;
• Go to more networking functions; and
• Become a connection collector on LinkedIn.

People who fully adopt this social networking strategy are like magpies. They constantly search for the newest “shiny” (connection) to collect and take back to their nest. Then, once a relationship has been “recorded” in their social networking tool, they forget about it. They leave the nest to create more connections.

What do these social networking magpies do with their collections? Not much. These shallow relationships don’t offer any leverage. In fact, a massive list of LinkedIn connections may be only slightly more valuable than the information within a phone book, a professional association directory, or a corporate directory.

Sure, the magpie met this person once for five minutes at a cocktail party (long enough to exchange business cards), but that’s all that happened. To paraphrase Shakespeare’s Hamlet: “What’s the magpie to him, or he to the magpie?”

Mark Granovetter’s famous work on the “Strength of Weak Ties” shows the importance of weak connections. IT’s a great way to find jobs–search beyond your closest circle of friends. However, there still has to be a meaningful connection between the two people.

Imagine a network 5,000 people wide. All of those relationships must be shallow. In fact, if you have 5,000 people in your LinkedIn network, you can’t spend much time with all of your contacts.

Social capital provides a completely different approach. When you have social capital, you have influence. People will take (and return) your calls. When you make an introduction or recommendation, people will eagerly welcome it. When you ask for help (or an introduction), your contacts will gladly help you.

Many people think that by expanding the number of contacts within their social network that they will increase their social capital. They’re making a huge mistake.

• Your social network represents the total potential size of your network.
• Your social capital represents your ability to leverage the resources and opportunities within that network.

New technology has made it easy for us to focus on expanding our social network, but it also tempts us to be lazy. We can easily forget the value of building social capital.

Every kind of network can be found among any group of managers, but only certain kinds of networks contribute to early promotion for certain kinds of managers. (Burt, Ronald. Structural Holes. Harvard UP: 1992.)

Burt’s quote comes from the conclusions of a study of 3,303 managers (below VP level) within a company that employed over 100,000 people at the time. While there were many different network structures used by the managers–some of them clearly favored success while others delayed success. But, no plan was a “sure-fire” winner for everyone. You had to match your situation and goals with your network approach.

Perhaps you’ve heard the quote by Tim Sanders, “Your network is your net worth.” Many people try the shotgun approach. They give business cards to everyone, and they collect thousands of LinkedIn connections. That approach doesn’t work. You never get to know these contacts with any depth (forget about trying to be relevant).

So, how do you build a network of people that allows you to create powerful leverage? What strategies do people use, and which one will be best for you? That’s the question that’s been fascinating me for the past few years, and I’ve been researching the answers.