Getting That LinkedIn Feeling

LinkedIn has hit the news in the UK today, and sadly it’s not an investigation into just how and why I see a Rob Mayhew video literally every time I log onto this platform. Rachel Reeves, the Chancellor, has been accused of massaging the truth when it came to her work history on her account, which has lead to criticism from opposition politicians, who have suggested that this has been a deliberate ploy to mislead. Reeves has denied this claim, and her LinkedIn account has since been updated to reflect the correct timings. Whether you believe this to be an honest mistake, or something more insidious, what it does symbolise is the increasing scrutiny and engagement politicians are finding on this platform.

As I have shared before, my colleague George Gibbons has written about this phenomenon for the Headland blog, in which he argues that LinkedIn has rapidly become a new forum for political engagement. Reeves herself has been an adopter of this, using the platform to link to the Treasury Budget’s livestream and generating a significant level of engagement. This is worthy of comment, as the platform begins to change in profile and become a broader church in terms of what type of engagement can happen on there. Gone are the days when it was a relative anodyne and functional platform, and an endless exchange of endorsements and liking career updates; it is now seen as place for wider industries (and including the political sphere) to share expertise and start discussions. As I’ve said before, it might be safest place to engage politically, shorn as it is of any specific ideological bent, and currently lacking any of the brand safety concerns that X may have, and with Meta’s recent strategic change may also have now.

However appealing this may seem, there are also considerations at play. The almighty algorithm won’t ever defeat the echo chamber accusations, with its weighting toward expertise, engagement and relevance. Posts about strategy, from strategists to a strategist audience will win out, and its highly likely that a lot of the politico caucus on this channel could be speaking to themselves on a lot of matters. That being said, it’s not always a bad thing. Having an engaged and relevant audience engaging with your content means the quality of the discourse and engagement is likely to rise, avoiding the kind of unsavoury scenes in the comments beneath an X post now which increasingly resembles feeding time at a petting zoo for sheer incoherence and fighting over scraps.

What this episode really does embody is the need for senior leaders to actually take this platform seriously. Audiences increasingly expect leaders of all stripes (political or business) to show up on here, and actually shape discussions and, well, show a bit of leadership. Profile hygiene goes a long way, and ensuring your account is at least up-to-date and active is a good start, but that’s really and extremely low bar. The best leaders on LinkedIn are active, engaged and using engaging features to reach these audiences. Daniel Ek over at Spotify has been an early adopter of video on here to share updates, and the lo-fi nature of the content he shares imbues it with an authenticity a stiff headshot or a nervously-read-from-autocue statement from behind a desk can’t. So, while there’s no legislating for misremembered employment histories, taking this platform seriously is something leaders simply must do.