Oversold LinkedIn Profiles

I just came across a LinkedIn profile that I won’t reveal for the sake of protecting the clueless, but the person had listed their job and then something like “visionary entrepreneur” and “global strategic leader” or some such nonsense. But believe me, this wasn’t a person that was Fortune 500 material. I got physically ill before I recovered and composed myself.

Why do people write bullsh!t like this on their LinkedIn profiles? It’s like, I’ll be the judge if you are “visionary” or not. There seems to be a lot of self-love and unfounded narcissism happening in these profiles. You wouldn’t see anybody of real status writing that crap about themselves.

Yeah, it is a career limiting move to talk about your accomplishments in a manner that doesn’t line up with reality. I have found in most cases that profiles like the one you mentioned are typically less ‘visionary’ and more ‘hacksaw.’

I once saw a resume come across my desk with “Joe Smith, CFA Candidate” across the top.

I felt like puking. and didn’t read much after that.

I saw an article written by someone who claimed to be a “trained social futurist,” whatever that is. I like futurism, and I like thinking about the social part of it, but I don’t know how one gets trained in that.

I recently saw a resume proclaiming “Dyanamic financial and analytical leader with best-in-class financial, analytical, and interpersonal skills.”

What does that smell of?

How do you feel about the people who have the “skills” section added and like ten reviews from former coworkers with , MBA next to their name? These people are odd to me. I just list my stuff without having people cosign it.

I think I should bill myself as a “best-in-class client-centered visionary bizspeak actionator producing on-time and on-budget standards-based jargon.” But somehow I think there should be “value-added” in there, too.

linkedin is such a crappy, overrrated site imo. Have no idea why it’s so popular

If you also include SaaS and cloud, you will probably start getting offers 2x your current salary. At least that is what has been happening with valuations in public equities.

I just have a page with a photo of myself drinking champagne in a tux driving my Land Rover with three hot blondes on a beach, with my name Geo, BSD. Anything else is hacksaw. If you have to tell someone about your skills and experience, its obvious your not important or notable.

agreed. Let the results speak for themselves. Only hacksaws care about linkedin. Real BSD let their results speak for themselves. Think Bill Gates or Buffet have LinkedIns?

With a leash, a newspaper, and treats, perhaps?

How do you guys then really use those social media sites, and what kind of benefit do you expect? I only had a profile on a german site but added a linkedin profile after the charter has been awarded, incl job titel, experience and interests.

What do you judge useful?

tbh, linkedin is only good for stalking former colleagues/friends, or potential client/business partner. I’ve had recruiters inbox me quite a lot but most of the time it’s garbage not even related to my skillset.

I find LinkedIn is good for keeping in touch with contacts, especially when folks switch firms and what not and don’t always send out their new details. If I need to talk to a contact for whatever reason, I can find them there. Not always true with email.

On a related note, is a LinkedIn profile with “Dennis Rodman, CFA” cringeworthy in your opinion? And on a resume?

I’ve heard differing opinions - some insist that it should be included under education or certifications only.

No, not at all. If you earned a PhD, MD, CFA, CPA then definitely put it behind your name.

In fact, it would appear weird to me if you had one of these and didn’t put it behind your name at the top

Im not a fan of it. It’s egotistical and arrogant imo. You are Itera, not Itera, CFA. The CFA isnt a part of your name. These PhDs put it behind their name so everyone that talks to them can think theyre so smart and high and mighty. Makes me want to throw up when a PhD is in an argument and pulls out the “I have a PhD and you are trying to argue with me?” card. Your education shouldnt define you and doesnt make you better than anyone else. Just like one wouldnt put Itera, 4.0 GPA at harvard after their name either

In my line of work, everyone with a professional cert (PE, FRM, CPA, CFA) or PhD puts it after their name, especially on the cover page of their testimony. More often than not, a CV is included as part of the testimony. However, a lot of people don’t read it unless it’s a new person filing. When you’re filing testimony as an “expert” witness, credibility is key, and while none of those certifications/titles/etc. necessarily mean someone is an expert in whatever it is their testimony covers, it certainly helps lend credibility to your name when filing testimony in front of a regulatory body.

I used to wonder why Ph.D. stands for “Doctor of Philosophy.” After all, shouldn’t it be a Doctor of Physics, or Math(s), or Literature or Finance? That’s what someone spent years and years studying?

But it turns out that the Ph.D. is not so much about building knowledge of a subject. That’s what a Master’s is for. Master of Finance, Master of Business Administration, Master of French Literature, whatnot.

A Ph.D. is a doctor of philosophy because you learn how to evaluate evidence, how to spot logical fallacies, how to analyze the coherence of ideas. Basically, you learn a fair amount of philosophy: epistemology, to be precise - how do you know what you know? why do you know it and with what level of certainty? what evidence do you need to demonstrate that something is true, and how would one go about finding that evidence. What alternative explanations might this evidence support instead, and are those more likely than the one you prefer. It’s about how to make effective arguments, not so much about knowledge of a subject matter (though the techniques often differ by subject matter).

So yes, “I have a Ph.D. and you are trying to argue with me?” is not so much about how you don’t know enough about X, it’s about how you don’t know enough to think coherently. The one caveat that should be observed is that sometimes Ph.D.s overstep their disciplinary bounds. Physicists, for example, often think that social phenomena can be mathematized the way physical phenomena can, and therefore are ill equipped to handle analyses where quantitative data is lacking or unreliable. Nonquantitative Ph.D.s often make the reverse mistake, but less often.