In the post they argue that if you get a bigger network you are playing the numbers game and NOT “really maximizing your network.”
They are arguing that the value of LinkedIn (and I infer other networks, including offline networking) is greater based on the QUALITY of the relationship you have with the people in your network and not in the QUANTITY of connections you have.
There is a lot of merit in that argument… I have seen this debate for the last 4+ years on forums I’m on and it gets close to a religious war.
My response? It depends on your circumstances, goals, etc.
Some people will get more value out of a smaller, very close network with strong relationships.
Others will get immense value from having a large network, regardless of the strength of the relationship.
Try to tell either group that they are doing it wrong… see how they respond :p
Here’s an image I created to show what this concept might look like:
The assumption is that a conservative connection strategy is full of high quality relationships and an open connection strategy (connect with ANYONE) is full of people you don’t know (low-or-no quality relationships).
I invite you to share what YOUR strategy is and WHY. Are there merits to having one strategy over another?
Note that a strategy can be anywhere along that line… not just at either end.
(I have a whole chapter dedicated to this in my LinkedIn book)