“Self-Proclaimed” Expertise – Versus – “Others-Acclaimed” Expertise

Caveat Emptor – Always.

This is especially an issue around Social Media and self-proclaimed experts. But it is true in many other professional fields such as Learning, Quality, etc.

I see many claims of expertise – and even short lists of accomplishments – but there it stops. No depth. No details. No indication of who it was done for – and whom might attest to such claims.

One of the ways to avoid this – if you actually have great experience and expertise – and many people do – is to make it easy for others – share the projects and some details and who the clients were (if they will allow that – some won’t!)  – and – if you don’t – don’t make such claims because you were involved in some kind of effort once (or twice) and/or were peripherally involved.

Ask those involved to attest publicly on LinkedIn (or some such easily available site) to your role and contribution.

I am proud of my depth of experience and my client engagement successes – and the 38 LinkedIn Recommendations I have here.

I did not trade tit-for-tat with these people – mostly clients and former employees – and for the few “trades” I might seem to have – those mostly came as a result of me spontaneously creating Recommendation for someone – who then in turn Recommended me. But not always.

Pattern Recognition

I get immediately suspicious – as The Analyst in me sees the pattern – of partnering and triangulation and more – when two or three or more people support each other with trades of Recommendations, and Post referrals, and ReTweets, etc. It’s always the same folks involved.  I often think there is a schedule – but I don’t take the time and effort to discern one – hoping that I am wrong.

You’ve probably noticed that too at times.

Hmm.

It’s one thing to be supportive. It’s good to be supportive.

But it’s another to create the true or false impression that it’s simply a marketing ploy – a trade-off – and not genuine.

If the number of posts and reposts and reTweets is limited to a very small number of cohorts – well – that says it all.

But – is that what they meant to say?

My clients – and numbers of projects – since 1982…

Clients   (#of Projects)

  • Abbott Laboratories (3)
  • ALCOA (2)
  • ALCOA Labs (2)
  • Alyeska Pipeline Services Company (2)
  • American Management Systems (1)
  • Ameritech (1)
  • Amoco Corporation (13)
  • Arthur Andersen (1)
  • ARCO of Alaska (3)
  • AT&T (4)
  • AT&T Communications (1)
  • AT&T Microelectronics (1)
  • AT&T Network Systems (24)
  • Bandag (7)
  • Bank of America (2)
  • Baxter (1)
  • Bellcore Tech (1)
  • British Petroleum-America (1)
  • Burroughs (1)
  • Channel Gas Industries/Tenneco (1)
  • Commerce Clearing House (1)
  • Data General (1)
  • Detroit Ball Bearing (1)
  • Digital Equipment Corporation (2)
  • Discover Card (1)
  • Dow Chemical (3)
  • EDS (1)
  • Eli Lilly (7)
  • Exxon Exploration (2)
  • Fireman’s Fund Insurance (1)
  • Ford Design Institute (1)
  • Ford Motor Company (1)
  • General Dynamics (10)
  • General Motors (25)
  • GTE (1)
  • H&R Block (1)
  • Hewlett Packard (5)
  • Illinois Bell (3)
  • Imperial Bondware (1)
  • Imperial Oil (1)
  • Johnson Controls (1)
  • Kodak (1)
  • Lockheed (1)
  • MCC Powers (16)
  • Motorola (1)
  • Multigraphics (1)
  • NASA (1)
  • NASCO (1)
  • NAVAIR (1)
  • NAVSEA (2)
  • NCR (2)
  • Norfolk Naval Shipyard (4)
  • Northern Telecom (1)
  • Northern Trust Bank (1)
  • NOVA (2)
  • Novacor (1)
  • NSA (1)
  • Occidental Petroleum Labs (1)
  • Pacific Gas & Electric (1)
  • Quaker (1)
  • Siemens Building Technologies (1)
  • Spartan Stores (1)
  • Sphinx Pharmaceuticals (1)
  • Square D Company (2)
  • SunTrust Banks (2)
  • Valuemetrics (1)
  • Verizon (3)
  • Verizon Information Services (1)
  • Wells Fargo Advisors (1)
  • Westinghouse Defense Electronics (1)

# # #

Leave a comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.