ALTOM: When is it OK to connect with someone on LinkedIn?

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Tim Altom

I’m a customer of an online business networking site called LinkedIn (www.linkedin.com). It’s somewhat similar to Facebook and its ilk. There’s a profile page, groups and so forth. The difference is that it’s for business only. You get linked to others by either asking them outright to link to you as a “connection,” or you get somebody else you both know to introduce you. You can’t just “friend” somebody on a whim. It’s like a business meet-and-greet online, sort of.

I never thought of LinkedIn as having an ethical dilemma attached to it, until one day when I received an invitation from a client to connect to him. Understand that I work for a company that provides software and services to hundreds of clients, and I personally do work for a large percentage of them. When I dealt with him, the client wanted to dive deeply into a statistical question, and since I’m the resident stats geek, I was tapped to talk with him. We had a great conversation, debating the value of several approaches to examining his data, and when I hung up, I felt pretty good about the call.

A day later, I didn’t know what to think when I got an invitation from him to connect to him on LinkedIn. Ordinarily I wouldn’t think at all; I’d just connect to him. A smart guy, interested in my peculiar brand of fun, and working in my industry. What’s not to like? But then I paused. It wasn’t my company he was linking to, but me. He wanted to establish a one-to-one relationship between us, not between our companies. When I’d worn my battered old consultant’s hat on that call, I was speaking not between two friends, but between two companies. Now he wanted to make it personal. And somehow that changed everything.

Connecting to others on LinkedIn or a similar site has lots of advantages. One big plus is that you get instant access to their networks of contacts. Effectively, it installs a bit of crossover piping between your network and his network. Not only that, but by extension you each now can get anyone in your respective networks to introduce you to people in their networks—and on and on.

There’s a rule of thumb in network theory called “Metcalfe’s law,” which says the value of a network increases, not linearly, but by the square of the total connected individuals. That means if you add 10 others to your 10-person network, theoretically the value of the whole network goes up, not from 10 to 20, but from 100 to 400. So as you add contacts in LinkedIn, the value of your whole network of contacts goes up rapidly, much faster than the count of connections. Others can link to you and get the benefit of your network, too, increasing the value of theirs instantly by a huge amount.

Think of it this way: When I’m teaching about knowledge management, I invite the class members to look around the room. I tell them, “Think of a problem you’re having. Somebody in this room probably knows the answer to it. Tell me who it is.” Nobody ever can. That knowledge is locked away, but with a tool like LinkedIn to help you find people with particular expertise, you can find that guy in the room with the answer you need. Searches through LinkedIn can be fascinatingly informative. Search by industry keywords and see who pops up. Look for experience in certain companies or types of work. Seek out users of the products you sell. The potential is limitless.

So when I got the client’s invitation, I was torn. Ordinarily, my company doesn’t discourage us from having arm’s-length friendly relationships with client personnel. We can have lunch with them, drinks after work, or even play golf. It’s tricky, because you don’t want to seem as if you’re formulating an exit strategy or playing favorites with them. If you’re careful, though, the brass has no objection.

But this was different somehow. More personal, with greater potential for misunderstanding. LinkedIn isn’t really for company-to-company networking, but person-to-person, the equivalent of calling the client at home instead of at work. Or at least that’s how it feels. I would have no problem friending his company on Facebook, if they chose to put up a site. But person-to-person on LinkedIn seemed like too close a relationship, so I declined to link to him.

I may have been wrong. I may have been too sensitive about the issue. It might never have compromised his company, or mine. But it’s well to be too sensitive in today’s online world rather than too bold. I don’t regret my decision.•


Altom is a consultant specializing in pairing businesses with appropriate technology. His column appears every other week. He can be reached at taltom@ibj.com.


  • Missing the point
    Tim, I think you are missing the point. Linked can be about friends, but is more about business connections. Sure they are people you are friendly with, but you are probably not going to share stories of your dog, or kids on a regular basis. That is what facebook is for. I have an account on each, and while there is some overlap with good friends I work with, they are largely separate. My boss is a connection, but not a friend. Unless you found the guy slimy or annoying, which I did not get that impression, I think you used the wrong thought process to arrive at your decision. Having that connection could help steer business your way some day.
    Good luck!
  • Linked in is most valuable tool in my business arsenal
    I use linked in as a replacement to Outlook, as it keeps everything up to date in an everchanging society, it is purely a business tool, and I don't have any personal information on there that I wouldn't put on my website or blor. I use facebook for personal only, and so there are many business people that I do not friend in facebook. tm

Post a comment to this story

We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. How much you wanna bet, that 70% of the jobs created there (after construction) are minimum wage? And Harvey is correct, the vast majority of residents in this project will drive to their jobs, and to think otherwise, is like Harvey says, a pipe dream. Someone working at a restaurant or retail store will not be able to afford living there. What ever happened to people who wanted to build buildings, paying for it themselves? Not a fan of these tax deals.

  2. Uh, no GeorgeP. The project is supposed to bring on 1,000 jobs and those people along with the people that will be living in the new residential will be driving to their jobs. The walkable stuff is a pipe dream. Besides, walkable is defined as having all daily necessities within 1/2 mile. That's not the case here. Never will be.

  3. Brad is on to something there. The merger of the Formula E and IndyCar Series would give IndyCar access to International markets and Formula E access the Indianapolis 500, not to mention some other events in the USA. Maybe after 2016 but before the new Dallara is rolled out for 2018. This give IndyCar two more seasons to run the DW12 and Formula E to get charged up, pun intended. Then shock the racing world, pun intended, but making the 101st Indianapolis 500 a stellar, groundbreaking event: The first all-electric Indy 500, and use that platform to promote the future of the sport.

  4. No, HarveyF, the exact opposite. Greater density and closeness to retail and everyday necessities reduces traffic. When one has to drive miles for necessities, all those cars are on the roads for many miles. When reasonable density is built, low rise in this case, in the middle of a thriving retail area, one has to drive far less, actually reducing the number of cars on the road.

  5. The Indy Star announced today the appointment of a new Beverage Reporter! So instead of insightful reports on Indy pro sports and Indiana college teams, you now get to read stories about the 432nd new brewery open or some obscure Hoosier winery winning a county fair blue ribbon. Yep, that's the coverage we Star readers crave. Not.