This article on how to correct and even improve LinkedIn endorsements (not the recommendations, which are far and few between, making them almost certainly more valuable, IMHO) caught my attention this morning. A commenter bemoaned that LinkedIn kept trying to have folks endorse him for “commodity,” which didn’t work while “commodities” might have.
I assume that this feature is, at its heart, “just” an algorithm that scrapes different, related profiles to build a taxonomy, which is why it’s sometimes duplicate (“commodities” vs. “commodity” – which was probably followed by “investments”). Then, the algorithm asks around to see what the contours of your work are.
The bigger danger is that when people don’t quite know what you do and thus will gleefully recommend you for anything that LI suggests. For example, I do a modest amount of licensing, but I’d really reject “patent” as part of my legal brand. So, the role of the user is to self-moderate the list to help fine-tune it.
Here’s my profile: http://rickcolosimo.com/linkedin (yes, isn’t that more friendly?)
You can see that my list of endorsements skews heavily toward the intersection of board governance and corporate legal advice. This is the domain in which I most often find myself dismantling complex problems into a series of structured decisions about manageable risks.
Now, before you read on to the next sentence, if you’re a client, colleague, friend, client, boss, former boss, or co-worker, PLEASE take a few second to think about what you think distinguishes me and the way I work and the advice I give from other startup lawyers: email me if you like, or at least keep that in mind when you look at this list below.
So, to implement the advice found in the article, here’s my top 5 preferred endorsements:
- Outside general counsel
- Corporate governance
- Corporate law
I’ll follow up here if I receive feedback that says I’m wrong about these — I know that the clients who seek and pay for my advice are the ultimate arbiters of what skills they value.