Networking—both brick-and-mortar and online—is about being visible and approachable. To be approachable, you need to be visible—preferably to the people you want to be approached by. You know people seek new business contacts on LinkedIn: strategic partners; vendors; clients; customers. And, of course, there are people who seek talent.

In my daytime job, the main concern of my clientele is that next gainful opportunity. Meaning, they want to be found when talent seekers look for assets of the kind they have to offer. Chances are, unless a specific company or alma mater is a factor, talent seekers run their searches based on keywords: skills; knowledge; abilities; technological competencies; and so on. Now that search is likely to yield tall stacks of results. (Yes, let’s face it: many people have qualifications very similar to yours.) Which begs the question: can you do anything to boost your chances of appearing in the first 20 results or so?
 
What is keyword density?
 
Keyword density is the presence of relevant keywords across sections of your profile. The main sections to be concerned about are: headline; summary; job write-ups; and skills. I like to think my own LinkedIn profile is quite adequate in presenting the right assets in the right places, so allow me to use my profile to demonstrate.
 
Headline
 
Here, capture the essence of your occupation, role, and professional capacity. My headline says: “Career Services Specialist | Workshop Facilitator | Certified Professional Résumé Writer.”
 
Summary
 
This is the first thing people look for after seeing your name, headline, and photo. (All right, I’ve seen your nametag, now tell me, in a nutshell: who are you professionally?)
 
From the first paragraph of my summary: “I take a look at [my clients’] career assets to bring out and connect the strong points. My clients’ career narratives are thoroughly revamped and recharged—from the nitty-gritty of cover letters and résumés all the way to new frames of mind ready for 21st-century job search.”
 
Did you notice the words “career” and “résumé” appeared in both the headline and the summary? (They appear yet again in the second paragraph of the summary, alongside the word “workshop,” which was also present in the headline.)
 
This is how you build keyword density. You want the right keywords to appear and then appear again, and again. That way, LinkedIn’s search engine will be likely to nudge your profile toward the top of results when someone runs a search for just those keywords.
 
Job write-ups
 
And on we go. Suffice it to just look at only part of the first bullet of my current job, which reads: “Facilitate workshops on brand building, stand-out résumés, and sustainable career-goal assessment.”
 
“Workshops”; “résumés”; “career.” Game, set, and match.
 
Skills
 
Well, does it get any easier to plug in the keywords you want to emphasize? This section invites you to do just that, and solidify their presence across profile sections. Guess what the three words are that appear in the first three skills listed in my profile….
 
But let’s move on from my profile. How about your skills? Suppose they include:

• Business Development
• Program Management

 
That’s four keywords: business; development; program; and management. Why not boost the presence of each by adding the following skills:

• Business Management
• Program Development

 
Did you notice how that just doubled the presence of each keyword—and in the same section at that?
 
Now check the other sections of your profile—headline, summary, job write-ups—for repeat mentions of these relevant keywords. Keyword density for the right keywords will improve your chances of being found in talent searches that are right for you.
 
Oh, and if you can get a couple of your LinkedIn connections to write you some recommendations, it won’t hurt to have some relevant keywords repeated across those recommendations as well.

At last week’s meeting of a local networking group, the topic was interviewing. While that is a perennial topic at pretty much any time, it was the week before last that I first noticed Verizon’s latest TV commercial. It is a goofy story involving a job candidate stuck at a subway platform. The train is already delayed by 20 minutes, causing her to be running late for her job interview. A compassionate fellow passenger then holds up his phone from across the subway platform so she can phone it in (pun intended, heh heh). I’ll get back to this commercial later.
 
Now this group meeting was facilitated by three local Career Center staff (me being one of them). We presented two mock-interview scenarios, each followed by a round of critique and discussion. The first scenario involved an obnoxious job candidate; in the second scenario, a good candidate had to deal with a listless, disengaged interviewer.
 
Let’s start with the obnoxious candidate. (That was me! And I will admit I had fun, getting to be a good example of a not-so-good example for a change.) Some of the noteworthy behaviors included:

• Greeting the interviewer saying “Geez, you sounded a lot younger on the phone.” (Can a compliment get any more backhanded than that?)
• Plugging in the phone charger without asking first, and only then saying, “You don’t mind, do you?”
• Not knowing or acknowledging the company’s 200-year history, but “schooling” the interviewer on how the company needs to be competitive by having Facebook and Twitter presence.

 
The networking-group audience (mostly job seekers) provided candid feedback. They felt at ease because none of them was at the receiving end of that feedback. Oh, and the benefit of the doubt had it that all the blunders had, of course, been just for show.
 
And on it went to the scenario where a listless, disengaged interviewer gave a good candidate a hard time. Some of those behaviors included:

• Cutting off the candidate halfway through an answer.
• Asking a question about the very thing the candidate had just told the interviewer all about.
• Proceeding to end the interview without offering the candidate to ask questions.

 
Again, a fruitful group discussion followed. The mock-interview premise probably contributed to that by piquing extra curiosity about the reason behind something the candidate or interviewer had said or done.
 
The “interviewer” (who, in fact, does conduct job interviews as part of his work) noted that interviewers really look for candidates who will have a conversation with them, rather than give “quiz answers” or fall back on canned phrases. Specifically regarding the cliché “people person,” it turned out no one in the room was able to pinpoint what that even really meant.
 
Which takes me back to the aforementioned Verizon TV commercial. That job candidate ends up screaming into that fellow passenger’s phone, across the tracks, for everyone else to hear: “I am a people person!”
 
Of course that is inane. Of course her candidacy is dead in the water. Let me point to this post on www.thecommercialcurmudgeon.com, if anyone wants itemized how this commercial should not be taken seriously. Other than that, I will give Verizon the benefit of the doubt, just as the professionals in the networking group did when they saw my goofy mock interviewing.

A couple of weeks ago, a LinkedIn member by the name of Oleg Vishnepolsky published a post titled 10 Reasons Why Best People are Declining Your Offers. The next day, he posted an update indicating another LinkedIn member had re-posted the 10 Reasons… piece under his own name.
 
While that post has disappeared by now, the alleged plagiarizer’s name can still be tracked down. (To his credit, he at least had the courage to engage with Vishnepolsky in the comments on that update.)
 
But the 10 Reasons… piece would continue to miraculously clone itself. At least one more 10 Reasons… re-post showed up. As of this writing, it still is up, and its “author” apparently doesn’t feel he needs to take it down. Rather, he responded to critical comments by claiming what he did was common practice, and done everywhere on the Web, all the time. (Does that sound like a false-news claim? Since it is his name appearing alongside the date the post was published….)
 
Another day or two later, Vishnepolsky reported that yet another post of his, titled 10 Ways to Lose Your Best Developers, had been appropriated by yet another LinkedIn member, and re-posted under that member’s own name.
 
If there is any upside to this, that would be how highly re-posters think of the original authors. As of this writing, that re-post, too, is still live. Like the other re-posts, it has spawned a good handful of comments from readers calling out the “author.” Let me just add the following to those comments:

1. Dishonest as plagiarizing itself is, I find it an outright brazen move when it is done on the same network (such as LinkedIn).
2. What I find especially pathetic is that the 10 Ways… re-poster claimed the original author’s “rallying cry” as his own. It doesn’t even seem industry-appropriate for him.
3. Piggybacking on (2), a plagiarizer doesn’t strike me as having a distinct brand of his or her own to begin with.
4. Once I see through plagiarizers, I am not going to click on any of their other articles. They may or may not be their original writing. Assuming I didn’t know the individual before, at this point I already will have lost any trust.

The scene: a large corporation’s big annual convention. The suspense builds up, as many thousands of employees await a major announcement on a decision by the Board of Directors. It is about a highly prestigious special project—specifically, about the team chosen to work that special project.
 
And then the big moment comes…the designated speaker of the Board takes to the mic…
 
“And the special project goes to…Jenny Johnson’s team!!”
 
Thunderous applause!! Jenny and her team members high-five one another. Then they shuffle to the podium, where Jenny joins the speaker by the mic and starts talking about how psyched she is to seize this opportunity, and how excited she is to get to work with the great people around her--
 
Suddenly a frenzied Chair of the Board is seen making a hasty entrance, mumbling something inaudible into Jenny’s ear, and then snatching the gold-rimmed folder from her as her face goes pale. Eventually, with an embarrassed grin, the Chair pronounces, half-hiding behind the mic:
 
“There has been a mistake. The special project really goes to Johnny Jackson’s team. Congratulations, folks. Sorry, Jenny.”
 
Words like “disappointment” and “frustration” hardly begin to describe what Jenny and her team are going through at that moment. The same goes for Johnny and his team if you attempt to encapsulate their experience with the word “anticlimactic.”
 
All this, of course, is the corporate analogy of the drama that played out at Hollywood’s Dolby Theatre on Oscar Night 2017. The mistake was on the part of PwC, the accounting firm on which the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences has relied for the past 83 years for a seamless show of Academy Award winners. PwC did apologize, and did follow up with statements providing adequate transparency about the way things went down.
 
PwC’s was not the first public apology I noticed, though, for this worst mishap in the history of the Oscars. The first public apology I noticed came from the Academy. Okay, there may be a ready explanation for that: with a live audience of tens of millions of people, the Academy’s immediate reaction would naturally be the one seen and heard first and foremost.
 
The Academy, of course, was not to blame. The apology coming from the Academy was appropriate to put a quick Band-Aid on the situation. That Band-Aid was bound to burst, though, and the fallout from this mishap has not yet subsided as of this writing.
 
 
Own Up—Fess Up—Make Up
 
Some commentators and analysts have speculated about the Academy taking action against PwC in the wake of this major mishap, possibly cutting ties altogether. That remains speculation, and in my opinion, it would be too drastic a consequence.
 
Mistakes happen, and when they happen, it is for the culprit to do their best to fix them. That’s how you deal with mistakes professionally: you give the culpable party a chance to control the damage and to better the situation.
 
So far, PwC seems to be on the right track in owning up—meaning, blame was not shifted to others or the circumstances. PwC also, in a way, fessed up—although that was more like pointing the finger at a fall guy (in releasing the name of the PwC partner who handed the wrong envelope to Warren Beatty).
 
But make up? Can a critical moment gone awry like that ever be made up for? The La La Land team had a brief illusion of Best Picture triumph at the Oscars, only to have it go Poof!! like the mirage it was. Likewise, the Moonlight team never did get to enjoy their moment of triumph that is ushered in by an exuberant announcement and received with the applause that follows the satisfaction of suspense at its climax. That moment was thwarted, and is gone forever.
 
The question, then, becomes how those at the receiving end handle their fate.
 
 
A Shot at Greatness in the Aftermath of Screw-Ups
 
Both the La La Land and Moonlight teams have received praise for carrying themselves with grace under the circumstances. They have continued their show of grace by not demanding the PwC individual in question be fired.
 
In December 2015, at the Miss Universe pageant in Las Vegas, Ariadna Gutiérrez (Miss Colombia) was pronounced the winner, and received the crown along with deafening cheers from the crowd. A good two minutes later, things turned seriously awkward when it was announced she was really the first runner-up, and the actual winner was Miss Philippines.
 
Shortly after that flub, Ariadna Gutiérrez released a public statement that was quoted in a Web article describing it as “classy and inspiring,” “refreshingly sweet,” and “humble and real.” Perhaps Gutiérrez knew that, while the win had eluded her, she still had a shot at emerging a victorious figure, showing forgiveness for the culprit and class beyond the competition.
 
 
Parting Thoughts
 
Let’s go back to the above scenario with Jenny Johnson’s and Johnny Jackson’s teams. I made it all up, of course.
 
Can you take it from here? How do you think that scenario will play out? Will the designated speaker of the Board suffer any disciplinary action, after getting “Johnson” and “Johnny” mixed up?
 
Is there a potential for a show of greatness on the part of Jenny and her team? Perhaps a potential for lasting prestige beyond just that one special project?

​The other week, someone sent me a personalized invite to connect on LinkedIn, stating we had a group in common—which was true. That guy’s LinkedIn profile looked rich and focused, so I accepted.
 
Next thing I know, that guy sends me a lengthy LinkedIn message touting his services, saying “if you or anyone you know” needed these services “at a reasonable price,” I should let him know. He also said I should visit his website, and “let me know your thoughts.” (On what exactly??)
 
Sigh. Not only was that message all self-promotion, it had a copy-and-paste look and feel to it; that of a “master networker” who rattles off his or her elevator pitch at networking functions as if playing back a pre-recorded infomercial.
 
That was the end of our conversation. I never responded, and at least he never pestered me again. (Which is another indication of how expendable I was to him as a business lead.)
 
Although effective networking doesn’t require any serious money, what it does require is some thought. And that requires time—the other big resource besides money. You must be willing to make an investment there, especially with new networking contacts.
 
The “sandwich” concept
 
Rather than forcing your pitch down someone’s throat, try making the purpose of your message “palatable” to a person—like a “sandwich” you bring. A well-made “sandwich” is more likely to be well-received.
 
Offer something—ask for something—offer something
 
Think of a “sandwich” as consisting of two slices of bread and the meat (and other fixings) in between. The slices of bread are about offering something, such as: a link to an informative piece relevant to the person; a link to a conference or webinar on a topic that is up the person’s alley; or a lead with the name of an individual or a company the person might want to check out.
 
The meat and fixings in between is where you ask for something, which might be: an informational meeting; a referral; or feedback on something like the new layout of your website. Even the guy I mentioned above could reasonably have asked me for that, especially if he had told me why he would value my input specifically.
 
Knowing how to “fix” a good “sandwich” can make or break your message
 
The two slices of bread can be critical in determining how willingly you receive the meat and fixings in the “sandwich.” Although that guy did offer at least one “slice of bread” later (random business tips), what came at me first was a greasy, overcooked “beef patty” (blatant self-promotion). No wonder I didn’t feel like touching it.