Use the “Favor Test” When You're Undecided About a LinkedIn Invitation

"Should I accept that LinkedIn invitation?" That's a question I'm almost guaranteed to hear during any social media workshop, or indeed, in one-on-one conversations about social networking. Even committed LinkedIn users are often uncertain of which connection requests to accept, or which invitations to extend: Someone who regularly shares your blog posts on Twitter? That guy on your condo board? Your cousin's girlfriend with the commemorative-gold-coin business?

The problem of who to connect with on LinkedIn puzzles people precisely because the network itself is neither fish nor fowl. Is it a social network like Facebook, where your connections are (at least notionally) "friends"? A public platform like Twitter, where people can see and judge you on the number of your followers? Or just a really awesome address book?

It's actually all of these things. To use LinkedIn to its fullest potential, you need to tap its power as an introduction machine: an address book in which all the entries can see and connect with another, to create a mini-network with you and the things you share at the hub. But that introduction machine only works if you are selective about which connections you initiate and accept.

I learned the value of selectivity the hard way. In the early days of LinkedIn, I connected with anyone who asked, just as I had on other social networks. But once I started trying to use it to get introduced to people I wanted to meet, I discovered that my promiscuity in making connections meant that most of my search results consisted of people I couldn't actually get introduced to.

Yes, each search turned up tons of potential connections—people who were connected to people I was connected with. But most of the time, that point of connection was someone I didn't know well enough to ask for an introduction. I wasted hours digging through pages of search results just to find the two or three connections I could really leverage. You need a filter to help you connect to not just anyone you know, but only those people who will be able to help—or whom you can help yourself. Thus was born the "favor test," the answer to the who-should-I-connect-to-on-LinkedIn question.

The favor test is simple: Would you do a favor for this person, or ask a favor of them? If so, make the connection. If not, take a pass. A favor isn't constrained to an introduction; other kinds of requests come into play on LinkedIn: Would you support my charity? Will you attend my conference? Can you review my book?

When you're thinking about whether to accept someone's invitation to connect, imagine being faced with a request like this. (Note that there's a difference between saying yes to a conference because it's an interesting event, and saying yes because you want to help out the person who asked.) It's the people you'd go out of your way to help or whom you trust to go out of their way to help you, however modestly, who pass the favor test. If you're consistent in applying the favor test, you can build a LinkedIn network that is useful and efficient in supporting any professional goal.

But you don't want to be one of those people: the kind of person who evaluates people based on a number. The whole point of the favor test is to think about the two-way quality of your relationships. LinkedIn has its most dramatic impact when a favor goes from a hypothetical test to a tangible action—when you make those introductions, or when you meet that key individual at a company you've always dreamt of working for. Once you see your LinkedIn network not only as a way to realize your own goals but also as an asset you can share with the people you believe in, you'll find it gives you much more than a few more sales leads, or a higher rank in the stack of resumes on a recruiter's desk.

Should I Accept that LinkedIn Invitation? | Harvard Business Review

Alexandra Samuel is Vice-President of Social Media at Vision Critical, a market research technology provider. She is the author of Work Smarter with LinkedIn (Harvard Business Review Press, June 2013). Follow her on Twitter at @awsamuel.

Image remixed from Nomad_Soul (Shutterstock).

Want to see your work on Lifehacker? Email Tessa.

View the original article here

Try Doing Some Creative Work When You're in a Bad Mood

When you're feeling cranky or upset, it might feel like the worst time to tackle a problem or do something creative. A study by the British Psychological Society implies that may not be the case.

The researchers found, while examining 100 creative professionals, that those who were in bad moods at the start of the day were be more persistent in trying to find a solution to problems. Being cranky at the start might suck, but once you've begun, that energy and momentum can keep you going even when your mood has long-since simmered. Or, to put it more science-y:

The narrow, alert focus on issues can be useful by focusing on things that are in need of a solution and spurring motivation to act on these; previous research does suggest that negative emotion can lead to more persistence in problem solving. Once this focus has been set, allowing the negative emotions to slide away and positive emotions to explore the possibility space is a good recipe for getting to innovative solutions.

Of course, doing things to upset yourself for no other reason than to be in a bad mood won't help, but next time you find yourself frustrated or angry, find a way to funnel that energy into something productive or creative.

In a Bad Mood? Tackle a Creative Task | Inc.

Photo by HackNY.org.

View the original article here

Skip the Showroom When You're Shopping for a TV

Sorry, I could not read the content fromt this page.Sorry, I could not read the content fromt this page.

View the original article here

Being a Jack of All Trades Doesn't Mean You're a Master of None

You've probably heard the derogatory saying "Jack of all trades, master of none." It implies that by trying to learn many things, you give up mastery of any of them. Quora designer David Cole says this is a myth.

He talks specifically about the field of design (the myth of the "unicorn" designer who can do everything from identity design to user interface design to Javascript coding), but his arguments apply to many fields. You don't have to pick between being great at one thing or just mediocre at many things.

"Learning isn't a zero-sum activity," Cole writes:

The central counter-argument here is that any learning comes with opportunity cost. Learning Python might very well take up time that you would otherwise use for studying, say, product management. This is true, in theory. But in practice, most designers I know, including myself prior to joining Quora, are not learning at their maximum rate. I have spent much of my career solving the same design problems over and over again with no substantive personal growth to show for it. I don't think my situation is unique.

But even if you were learning at your maximum rate, the opportunity cost argument actually works in favor of the multi-disciplinary approach. Design and its component practices are like any other craft: you can always develop a deeper familiarity with the minutiae, asymptotically approaching mastery. But this is a process with diminishing returns. Would you rather carve a door 1% better than you did last year, or learn how to build the rest of the house in the same amount of time? As I argue below, the connective tissue between these skills may actually be more valuable than incremental gains in a single practice.

We've discussed previously how knowing a little of everything can often be better than having one expert skill set. If you're not convinced yet, Cole's many arguments further support the view that you can be a generalist or take a multi-disciplinary approach and still do great work.

The Myth of the Myth of the Unicorn Designer | Quora

Photo by ulegundo (Shutterstock).

Related Creativity and innovation seems to flow from dedication to a particular type of work, but productivity and ideas blog the 99u noticed a trend: the… Read…

View the original article here