Leveraging Your New Connections on LinkedIn

Leveraging your new connections on LinkedIn
Many people have asked me about LinkedIn and the number of connections they should try to have. Should they be very selective or more of an open-networker? Does the absolute number really make a difference? Why do I have so many and continue to grow my network? And how being connected to me can help them specifically.

Just to establish definitions, an Open-Networker or LION (LinkedIn Open Networker) is a LinkedIn member who decides to accept all legitimate invitations received without regard as to how well they know the individual sending the invitation. They never click ' I don't know' as a response- at worst they just ignore it. LinkedIn corporate cautions members not to send invitations to members they do not know- the reason is that too many clicks of ' I don't know this member' can cause a suspension of invitation privileges and runs counter to their concept of forming a trusted, limited number of contacts who can then forward messages on your behalf.

Open-Networkers believe that having more connections is beneficial to all members. These can include: having a deeper, wider 2nd and 3rd level of connections that all connections can 'see' and reach out to; acting as a nodal point for less well connected LinkedIn members allowing them to be 'seen' by your own distant connections; connecting with people from other countries and cultures you might not otherwise be familiar with; creating a more connected and peaceful world through one-on-one interactions.

So how does connecting with someone with a large number of direct connections benefit you? Some are passive and require no effort on your part while others require activity.

Passive - You're now visible to all my 1st and 2nd level connections. That may be a million or more new individuals depending on your own number of connections. You may receive calls, inmails or requests regarding business development opportunities, consulting opportunities or new positions that you would otherwise not receive. To augment your 'passive' connectivity, I suggest you put your email prominently in your LinkedIn profile both in the summary at the beginning and in your Personal information at the end. I would also consider adding a phone number to make it easier to reach you. If you are an Open-Networker make that status obvious in your header.

Active- You can request I forward messages to other members to gather similar benefits. My list of contacts is 'open' so you can search for colleagues, networking opportunities or individuals with similar interests. You can find individuals who are a close match to your own skill set through a search and review their group memberships for ideas or ping them about collaborations. If you are seeking a new opportunity, you can find individuals who are potential hiring managers and politely request networking and introductions of them. If you are unable to move forward with interviews, you can find volunteer organizations where you can contribute and network. If you are not quite comfortable with Open-Networking, at least add a few highly connected members to your network to increase your visibility. Connect with those individuals who are in your industry or recruit in your field. After all, LinkedIn is foremost a business network.

Gene Based Therapy for HIV

UCLA AIDS Institute researchers report they have been able to remove a specific cell receptor from human cells that is critical for binding HIV. Using a siRNA molecule called short hairpin RNA ( shRNA) to induce RNA interference in human blood stem cells, they were able to inhibit the expression of an unneeded cell receptor called CCR5. Individuals who lack this receptor are naturally resistant to HIV. Please find the article in this months- Blood, Journal of the American Society of Hematology.
Now for my thoughts. This represents a paradigm shift and a completely new strategy for treatment of HIV in currently infected individuals. Depending on how difficult this shRNA was to transplant, the treatment could potentially be of value in high risk populations as a new type of vaccine. Are there other receptors for viruses or parasites representing potential targets for this type of therapy- HBC, HCV for example. This is one of the most exciting potential therapies I have come across- eliminating the expression of a particular receptor to effect change in disease susceptibility. It's particularly interesting from the perspective of regenerative medicine, perhaps eliminating receptors that have been identified with disease in the course of replacing tissue with adult stem cells. This is very exciting and most promising. I'm certain we'll be hearing more about this type of receptor modification treatment in the next few years.

No more surgery in 2010

Having survived its multiple surgical traumas as the economy went over the cliff in the final quarter of 2008- after being T-boned by the exorbitant speculative run up in oil prices earlier that year- the economy has spent 2009 in the Surgical ICU experiencing repeated intubations, central lines, tapering with ventilator settings, MRSA and VRE infections, dialysis and multiple codes. Somehow it's survived. Unfortunately as we enter 2010 the doctors are still pressing for more surgery and drug interventions although common sense may finally have taken hold and the 'no extraordinary measures' order signed. This may be a time for tax incentives for new hiring and accelerated depreciation on purchases, but not a time to continue deeper interventions that will result in permanent iatrogenic problems. And please- we don't need more 'shovel ready' projects. Frankly I never want to hear that phrase again. I don't want to be caught up in traffic while one individual fills a pothole and 10 construction workers look on- all to artificially lower the unemployment rate. We need real increases in productivity to do battle in a world economy, not wasteful big government spending.
Indeed the current political stalemate is exactly what is needed- a standoff between the surgeons and the physicians over what should be done for the patient. Let them glare at each other and make threats as to why their actions are the only ones capable of saving the patient. As the year begins, there is increased hiring in the life sciences. Let's allow the patient to get up and take a few steps down the hallway. Perhaps they'll be discharged by the end of the year.

Biopsy of Economy

The economy continues to dominate our thinking. Really dominate- how truly sad when the focus should be on advancing medicine and technology, not on whether your biotech start-up will make it through the end of 2009. I see a pick up in VC financing and even a rare IPO- perhaps things are beginning to turn. We've been bouncing along the boulder field of the cliff the economy fell off Sept 2008 for long enough. But here's the rub- how are we going to have a sustained recovery when the focus is on reforming health care instead of helping business? Obviously reforming health care is center stage for political reasons. It is highly likely the Democrats will loose dozens of seats in the House and several in the Senate in the mid-term election. A turnover in the House is not out of the question; the number of seats that are in contention in the Senate makes a turn-over there unlikely in 2010. The unemployment and Under-employment rate will only slowly improve by the fall of 2010 and the Dow will likely be over 10,000- but the number of middle-class voters still affected by this economy will be significant. Hence the urgency to institute a comprehensive health care reform while Obama still has super-majorities in the House and Senate and can push through a public option. Or a public mandate- who are we really kidding here? As a physician, I understand the attraction of a single payer system. Frankly the multitude of private insurances was a real nuisance from a billing perspective. But competition is always the best way.
Regarding the economy- why not institute an investment tax credit as has been done in the past? Accelerated depreciation, expensing of otherwise long term capital assets and the ability to fully write-off purchases for your business this year. Why does the present administration seem to believe that it can government-spend its way out of this deep recession when the only way out is to grow the private economy? And that means improving the business climate, not raising taxes and expecting business to somehow pick up the slack. It means letting go- not taking over more industries as has already been over done.
By early 2011 the Obama agenda will have run it's coarse. Let's hope it will somehow help sustain the life sciences, not stand on top of them.

Healtcare Reform- Now or Never?

Indeed it does seem that change is imminent.
In order to have something in place before the next election cycle we may see a 3rd government run program slipped inbetween Medicaid and Medicare. This is the administration's opportunity to introduce a program that will eventually displace most private insurance for healthcare. Initially people will have a choice- but eventually few employers will want to pay for a more expensive, although responsive, private insurance plan. Fundamentally a 3rd program is the only way to actually dictate healthcare costs from the government's perspective. One can incentivize, cajole, extract promises, seek greater efficiency, but in the end if it is in the hands of private companies to set fees and approve procedures, the government does not control those costs. Obama also wants a legacy to his presidency he can point to and say 'I did this'. Just expanding private coverage does not provide that capstone. Look at the Massachusetts model: no one really got 'credit' for the program, it's still having problems, it's working but expensive. A 3rd government program can be implemented immediately,likely through CMS, and will result in additional hires to address unemployment- another one of Obama's associated promises. Private insurance cannot be relied upon to hire immediately. All the effort getting input from the stakeholders may ultimately just be a screen for implementing such a 3rd program. Obama has the votes in congress, he has Ted Kennedy to rally the country- I'm sure his team sees this as 'now or never'. We will see..

Health Insurance Turned Upside Down

I believe we need to move away from a health model that rewards procedures and disease and towards a model that promotes wellness. In order to accomplish an abstract, long term goal involving multiple stakeholders it is best to allow them to solve the problem themselves. But when each stakeholder is fighting to maintain status quo and surrender as little as possible it creates stagnation. Rather than regulate heavily- which is where the current administration is heading- my suggestion is to adjust the playing field to incentivize the stakeholders. Rather than a level playing field with a tug-of-war pulling on 'healthcare' , tilt the field so that all the players end up on the same side and are pulling in the same direction- not against one another. An initial step would be to adjust the insurance company's relationships with one another so that their interests align with making people healthier.

In order to promote wellness and get the health insurance industry focused on keeping people 'well' as opposed to treating illness after it occurs, then something fundamental needs to be done. Why should an insurance company receive premiums for months or years and rarely pay a claim because of 'luck' ? And is it not the 'fear' of being stuck with an enormous bill for a patient that drives the process of 'underwriting'? Underwriting is expensive, labor intensive, slow and wasteful.

I suggest that the insurance company which has been covering the person for the longer time should pay a portion of the claims that occurs after the person changes insurances. That would make the insurance company that received the most monthly premiums contribute more fairly when an illness occurs. If the first insurance company was responsible for a portion of any claim for a period of time after their coverage ended - let's say one or two years- then they would have a stronger interest in keeping that patient healthy in the long run. During their own coverage period they would make more of an effort to do so. And the second insurance company would know that even if there were underwriting concerns ( more than average # of claims or the person having a certain disease) that any new claims would be proportionately paid by the first insurance company. This would mitigate the new insurance company's risk. Perhaps the first insurance company would pay 90% first three months and decreasing 10% each month there after so at the end of a year it would be totally on the new health insurance company.

Without many fundamental changes to healthcare in the US the entire system will become unaffordable. The population is aging, technology is increasing, drugs are more expensive. This type of 'insurance sharing model' is only one change that could lead to new thinking and progress toward wellness.

Outsourcing Analytics Poll

Do you outsource your analytics and what factors are critical for making that decision?
Please use this link: http://polls.linkedin.com/p/24310/liiqw