From Freemasons to LinkedIn

There was a typically excellent article in this week’s Economist, writing about exclusive clubs, both old and new.

Elite clubs are the worst enemies of merit and of diversity. Whole countries and many companies are run by small groups of people with club like connections, often not wholly transparent. France was quoted in the Economist – they don’t like the French much. But look at Russia. Or Japan. Or Brazil. Or Italy. In America, it horrifies me that the most advantage-giving possible entry on a child’s university application form is that a parent is an alumnus. Wow.

That is countries. From what I have experienced, companies are not much better. My own worst experiences have been in Germany, but cliques and clubs and prejudices are everywhere. Look at the typical board of a major corporation and cross reference members with other boards. Hmm.

I have some experience of freemasons. In Northern Ireland, masonry was historically an arm of covert protestant societal supremacy (balanced, of course, by a Catholic equivalent). I have also worked in South Wales, where the lodge was also surprisingly powerful. I once had cause to berate an operator of a fairly poor petrol station in Newport, and was surprised to receive a message from on high some days later suggesting I back off. Apparently the site manager was a senior mason, as was the chairman of Shell UK at the time. Needless to say, I took not the slightest bit of notice – no doubt with career limiting consequences – but that certainly left a sour taste.

All this is very marginal. Who can argue against someone putting in a good word for a friend, or asking people they trust for references? I know freemasons and other such groups do some great good for society. Even my Welsh example can be explained as well intentioned if clumsy. But the overall effect, especially when things are covert, is, in my opinion, poisonous and anti-progress.

Which brings me to LinkedIn. The Economist brilliantly links networking websites to the masons and Opus Dei, arguing that LinkedIn is to freemasonry as FaceBook is to the Women’s Guild or MSN is to letter writing, ie a modern incarnation of an old idea. And, just like in the other examples, LinkedIn appears better. It is open and transparent, it is available to everyone, and it works rapidly.

So, you might argue, what is the point? Are you really likely to take full confidence in a LinkedIn reference? If you want to find people with specific skills, are there not more reliable ways? So far, I’ve resisted the invitations to join LinkedIn so maybe I’m missing something, though the Economist seems to agree with me. (By the way, I am in Facebook – though haven’t worked out the point of that either apart from the chance to see photos of my daughter kissing different boys in London on a disturbingly regular basis, and I adore MSN: if you are not yet a user of communicator, I advise you to join the modern world now!)

The Economist argues that LinkedIn will become such a debased currency so fast that clubs, maybe secret clubs, will emerge within the LinkedIn club. Hidden code words, and references to more established groupings, will start to be important as people search LinkedIn to look for ways of narrowing down to “people like them”. Hidden code words, favouring people like themselves – now doesn’t that remind you of the freemasons? The old ideas die slowly, if they die at all.