In today’s digital world, social media platforms are more than just spaces for personal connection and content sharing–they have become vehicles for professional growth, especially on LinkedIn. A space that was once primarily a professional network has now evolved into a complex arena where thought leadership and social media influence coexist, often clashing in both subtle and outright ways. As I dive into this topic, I’ll be sharing not only an experience I had on LinkedIn but also a fascinating real-life story about a celebrity cat burglar, Peter Scott, to draw parallels between these worlds.
The Observation: LinkedIn’s Shift in Purpose?
I encountered an interesting post on LinkedIn a few months ago about keyboard shortcuts. On the surface, it was a basic, no-frills piece of content. The shortcuts worked, sure, but they were nothing groundbreaking–simple and obvious to anyone even remotely familiar with the subject. This wasn’t about offering transformative ideas or solutions; it was, to my observation, about engagement. A classic post designed to attract likes, shares, and followers, with the goal of gaming the algorithm rather than providing any depth of value.
My response to the post was rooted in a simple but critical question: Why does this problem of needing shortcuts arise in the first place? Shouldn’t we, as professionals, ask why certain inefficiencies exist at all, instead of just providing quick-fix solutions to bad practices? As a consultant, I’ve seen firsthand how identifying upstream problems can lead to long-term solutions, but these kinds of deeper discussions seem rare on LinkedIn.
What surprised me wasn’t the post itself, but the reactions to my comment. The original poster quickly dismissed the need for deeper discussion, stating that they were simply sharing shortcuts, not seeking intellectual debate. Other commenters jumped to the defense, implying that I was overcomplicating a simple post. But what really stood out was that no one seemed interested in addressing the real question: Why was there a problem in the first place? It felt like LinkedIn, despite being marketed as a professional network, was becoming more of a social media platform where content is designed not for meaningful impact, but for likes and engagement.
The Algorithm and the Bottom of the Pyramid
LinkedIn is a professional platform, yet many of its users, particularly those leveraging it for social media influence, seem to cater to the lowest common denominator. This often means generating easily digestible, universally agreeable content–think “the sun rises in the east” level of obviousness. While this might rack up likes and shares, it does little to challenge or push the boundaries of thought leadership.
This approach targets a wide audience–often those with less discernment, expertise, or attention to deeper matters. And in doing so, it neglects the discerning professionals who would benefit from more substantive, critical discussions. It’s a strategy aimed at maximizing engagement, not fostering real professional growth.
What’s interesting is that this isn’t just an issue of content creators producing shallow posts. There’s a whole subculture of influencers, sometimes working in what are called “pods,” where they support each other’s posts to game the algorithm. They like, comment, and share each other’s content, creating an artificial sense of popularity and relevance. The purpose isn’t to foster professional development but to increase social media points, often leading to skewed impressions of influence.
The Paradox of “Great Content”
Take, for example, a prominent LinkedIn influencer, Anders Lu Lindberg. He once claimed in a post that despite being ranked as number six on an engagement leaderboard, he should really be number one, as he had twice as much engagement as the top-ranking individual. When asked how he achieved such engagement, his response was simple: “By posting great content and working the algorithm.”
But what exactly constitutes “great content”? In his case, it seemed to boil down to popularity rather than substance. When challenged to explain whether his followers were truly better off after consuming his content, or if his advice led to meaningful professional improvement, there was no reply. It led me to wonder: Does the algorithm measure impact or simply the number of clicks? Unfortunately, it seems to be the latter.
And this is where LinkedIn’s dual identity–professional platform versus social media–creates tension. While people like Lindberg amass followers through shallow engagement, the value of true thought leadership gets diluted in a sea of algorithm-driven content.
The Cat Burglar and the Lesson of Selling Without Accountability
Now, let’s talk about Peter Scott, the infamous “Gentleman Thief” and cat burglar. Scott was known for his high-profile heists, stealing from the rich and famous, including icons like Sophia Loren. He later wrote a book about his exploits, aptly titled *Gentleman Thief*. Appearing on a daytime talk show to promote the book, Scott faced hostile criticism from the audience, who condemned him for profiting from his criminal past. In response, Scott stood up and declared, “I came here to promote my book, not to justify my actions to you.”
This moment is incredibly telling. Like many LinkedIn influencers today, Scott wasn’t there to engage in moral or intellectual debate; he was there to sell something. It didn’t matter whether the audience agreed or disagreed with his actions–the purpose was self-promotion.
The lesson here is clear: Just as Peter Scott used his notoriety to sell his book, many LinkedIn influencers use their platform not to foster discussion or challenge ideas but to push content for personal gain. The focus is on metrics–likes, shares, and followers–not on whether their content is making a real difference.
Conclusion: Thought Leadership or Influencer Culture?
LinkedIn sits at a crossroads between being a platform for genuine professional networking and a stage for social media influencers to play the algorithm. True thought leadership should involve asking difficult questions, encouraging deep discussion, and creating lasting value. But too often, we see the opposite–content that is designed to generate engagement rather than insight, much like Peter Scott’s unapologetic book promotion.
As professionals, we need to decide how we engage with LinkedIn. Do we challenge the superficial content, or do we let it go unaddressed, allowing the platform to drift further into the realm of social media triviality? The choice is ours, but one thing is clear: LinkedIn’s identity is increasingly shaped by those who are more interested in likes than leadership.
You’ve been listening to a podcast by Hiran de Silva. Read by Bill.
Add comment