UDSKRIFT 🔗
WEBVTT
00:00:58.859 --> 00:01:03.500
You probably use your expertise every working day.
00:01:03.820 --> 00:01:12.939
You answer questions, spot problems, weigh up options, and make decisions that someone with less experience would find difficult.
00:01:13.340 --> 00:01:19.340
But how much of that can another person or AI see when they look you up?
00:01:19.579 --> 00:01:27.420
They might find your job title, a list of services, and a statement about how many years you've been in your field.
00:01:27.659 --> 00:01:29.819
Those things provide context.
00:01:29.980 --> 00:01:34.299
They don't necessarily show what you can do or how you think.
00:01:34.699 --> 00:01:37.099
That's what we're looking at today.
00:01:37.420 --> 00:01:53.099
Practical ways to give people and AI systems evidence of your expertise, things you can draw from the work you're already doing without turning every working day into a content production exercise.
00:01:54.539 --> 00:02:03.340
In our earlier episode on authority, we looked at whether the evidence attached to your name supports the expertise you claim.
00:02:03.580 --> 00:02:06.379
Today we're taking that a step further.
00:02:06.699 --> 00:02:08.859
Where does that evidence come from?
00:02:09.099 --> 00:02:10.620
What could you share?
00:02:10.780 --> 00:02:17.740
And how do you make it useful to someone who's deciding whether your expertise is relevant to them?
00:02:18.219 --> 00:02:31.020
I've got five practical approaches to share with you, including examples from our own work, such as a company page assessment for Australian Exhibition Company Out Their Branding.
00:02:31.500 --> 00:02:36.219
As you listen, think about one area you want to be known for.
00:02:36.460 --> 00:02:43.500
You don't need to apply every idea, look for the one that gives you a useful place to start.
00:02:45.099 --> 00:02:50.939
Before we get into the five approaches, there's a small but important decision to make.
00:02:51.259 --> 00:02:55.500
What expertise are you trying to demonstrate?
00:02:55.819 --> 00:03:06.460
If you've had a long career, there could be quite a lot to choose from, but someone considering you for a particular piece of work needs evidence relevant to that work.
00:03:07.179 --> 00:03:11.500
Suppose you want to be known for guiding an organization through change.
00:03:11.739 --> 00:03:16.060
Your qualifications and previous positions may support that.
00:03:16.379 --> 00:03:27.500
But an example of how you identified a barrier, brought people into the process, or adjusted a plan would give someone a much better sense of your contribution.
00:03:28.060 --> 00:03:34.060
Or you might be a consultant who wants clients to understand that you provide strategic advice.
00:03:34.299 --> 00:03:43.099
If all they can find are descriptions of the products you supply, they may not recognize the thinking that comes before those products.
00:03:43.659 --> 00:03:49.099
That relationship between what you say and what you show
Load full transcript
matters.
00:03:49.419 --> 00:03:52.939
A clear description gives people a starting point.
00:03:53.340 --> 00:03:57.259
Your examples gives them something to assess.
00:03:58.060 --> 00:04:02.060
And the evidence doesn't have to be a spectacular success story.
00:04:02.299 --> 00:04:08.699
A well-explained everyday decision can reveal a great deal about your expertise.
00:04:09.979 --> 00:04:17.660
The first approach is to take a question you regularly hear and answer it in a way that shows your professional judgment.
00:04:17.980 --> 00:04:22.540
You'll almost certainly have questions that come up again and again.
00:04:22.860 --> 00:04:30.300
Because the answers feel familiar to you, you may overlook how useful they could be to someone else.
00:04:30.780 --> 00:04:34.300
The interesting part is often the qualification you add.
00:04:34.620 --> 00:04:37.980
What do you need to know before you can answer?
00:04:38.300 --> 00:04:42.379
Which circumstances change your recommendation?
00:04:42.939 --> 00:04:47.740
What mistake could someone make if they followed the simplest answer?
00:04:48.540 --> 00:04:56.540
In my work, one question is whether someone would be better publishing LinkedIn articles or posts.
00:04:56.860 --> 00:05:03.100
Before making a recommendation, I want to know what they're trying to achieve and what they have to say.
00:05:03.420 --> 00:05:06.379
Are they sharing a timely observation?
00:05:06.780 --> 00:05:14.060
Or explaining something that needs space, examples and a resource they can refer people back to.
00:05:14.780 --> 00:05:17.900
A short post might do the first job well.
00:05:18.220 --> 00:05:22.780
An article might be a more useful home for the second.
00:05:23.580 --> 00:05:28.220
The format decision follows the purpose and the substance.
00:05:28.700 --> 00:05:33.420
Explaining that reasoning shows someone how I approach the question.
00:05:33.740 --> 00:05:37.100
It also gives them a way to make their own decision.
00:05:37.580 --> 00:05:45.580
Your equivalent could be an accountant explaining what they need to understand before recommending a business structure.
00:05:45.980 --> 00:05:56.220
Or a manager explaining when a performance issue calls for clearer expectations, additional training, or a different conversation.
00:05:56.780 --> 00:06:00.700
Those are hypothetical examples, but the principle's the same.
00:06:01.020 --> 00:06:06.939
Take the question beyond a quick answer and show the factors that matter.
00:06:07.740 --> 00:06:13.819
A useful way to start this is to write down a question you answered just this week.
00:06:14.060 --> 00:06:19.260
Then add what did I ask before answering and why?
00:06:19.580 --> 00:06:27.100
You could turn that into a post, a short video, or a frequently asked question on your website.
00:06:27.420 --> 00:06:34.140
Even a substantive comment and a relevant discussion can give people a glimpse of your thinking.
00:06:34.780 --> 00:06:37.420
Keep the explanation focused.
00:06:37.740 --> 00:06:45.819
You're giving someone enough context to understand your judgment rather than everything you know about the subject.
00:06:48.140 --> 00:06:54.220
The second approach is closely related but starts with a decision rather than a question.
00:06:54.780 --> 00:06:58.140
People see your finished recommendation.
00:06:58.620 --> 00:07:07.340
They rarely see the options you considered, the compromises involved, or the reason you ruled something out.
00:07:07.980 --> 00:07:11.819
That's often where your expertise is most apparent.
00:07:12.220 --> 00:07:25.740
You might explain why you chose a particular approach for a project, why you advised against a popular option, or why you changed advice you'd given previously.
00:07:26.140 --> 00:07:28.540
I have an example of that last one.
00:07:29.100 --> 00:07:40.780
My advice about the shape of LinkedIn videos changed from square to four by five portrait format as presentation in the feed changed.
00:07:41.100 --> 00:07:47.180
For example, the useful part is explaining why I reconsidered the advice.
00:07:47.500 --> 00:07:55.420
A recommendation that made sense in one set of circumstances needed reviewing when those circumstances changed.
00:07:55.900 --> 00:08:04.060
Advice has a context and reviewing your own recommendations is part of maintaining your expertise.
00:08:04.540 --> 00:08:19.900
In your work, you might have changed a process after noticing that it created unnecessary delays, or selected a less elaborate solution because the client's team needed something they could maintain themselves.
00:08:20.460 --> 00:08:30.860
If you share a decision like that, give us the situation, the realistic alternatives, and the factor that carried the most weight.
00:08:31.180 --> 00:08:35.019
Then explain what someone else can learn from it.
00:08:35.819 --> 00:08:40.700
You can also explain where your recommendation would be different.
00:08:40.939 --> 00:08:45.740
That helps people avoid treating one example as a universal rule.
00:08:46.620 --> 00:08:51.340
Confidentiality may affect how much detail you can provide.
00:08:51.659 --> 00:08:59.019
You can anonymize a situation or explain the decision criteria without naming the client.
00:08:59.419 --> 00:09:04.299
If you use a hypothetical illustration, make that clear.
00:09:04.700 --> 00:09:17.340
The practical starting point here is to look at a recent recommendation and ask what part of my reasoning would be useful for another person to understand.
00:09:21.019 --> 00:09:26.139
The third approach is to show something you use or produce in your work.
00:09:26.539 --> 00:09:35.419
That could be a checklist, an annotated extract, a framework, a worked example or a small part of an assessment.
00:09:35.579 --> 00:09:38.620
It doesn't have to be the entire deliverable.
00:09:39.259 --> 00:09:42.779
The explanation alongside it matters.
00:09:43.179 --> 00:09:49.980
Tell people what it's for, what to pay attention to, and how it informs a decision.
00:09:50.539 --> 00:10:03.980
For example, our linkability authority audit gives people a way to examine whether the evidence attached to their name supports the expertise they claim and the opportunities they want.
00:10:04.539 --> 00:10:08.620
That makes an abstract subject easier to work with.
00:10:08.939 --> 00:10:20.860
Someone can look at their own professional presence and identify where the evidence is strong, where it is thin, and where it points towards work they no longer want to pursue.
00:10:21.500 --> 00:10:31.099
Sharing a resource like that demonstrates how I translate a strategic question into something people can examine for themselves.
00:10:31.819 --> 00:10:40.939
Your equivalent might be a checklist you use before approving its project, a sample brief or an anonymised analysis.
00:10:41.419 --> 00:10:47.579
A trainer could share a short exercise and explain what it's designed to reveal.
00:10:47.819 --> 00:10:55.179
A consultant could show the questions they used to clarify a problem before providing a solution.
00:10:55.819 --> 00:11:01.339
You can share a useful slice while retaining the depth of the service you provide.
00:11:01.659 --> 00:11:07.419
The aim is to let someone see enough of your approach to understand its relevance.
00:11:08.059 --> 00:11:12.779
Choose something that makes sense outside the original project.
00:11:13.099 --> 00:11:24.779
Internal shorthand, unexplained labels and a screenshot full of tiny text can make good work difficult to appreciate.
00:11:25.339 --> 00:11:33.259
And make sure you have the right to share it, especially when it contains a client's material or belongs to your employer.
00:11:33.980 --> 00:11:42.860
For your starting point, look through your existing work for one item you regularly use to make a problem clearer.
00:11:43.179 --> 00:11:48.699
What short explanation would make it useful to someone else?
00:11:50.620 --> 00:11:59.019
Our fourth approach is to explain a piece of work through the problem, your contribution and what changed.
00:11:59.339 --> 00:12:03.259
This is where a concrete example can be particularly useful.
00:12:03.740 --> 00:12:08.860
People can see what you noticed and why your recommendation mattered.
00:12:09.339 --> 00:12:21.659
Let me use Out There Branding, an exhibition and brand engagement business whose LinkedIn Company page I assessed in July and reassessed in September.
00:12:22.379 --> 00:12:28.539
The original assessment found strong thinking in the content associated with the page.
00:12:28.779 --> 00:12:37.980
There were clear ideas about exhibitions, creating conversations, and about merchandise being chosen for its purpose and usefulness.
00:12:38.459 --> 00:12:43.179
But the formal description of the business was broader and less focused.
00:12:43.419 --> 00:12:51.899
It covered a range of services, products and capabilities, leaving a visitor to work out how they fitted together.
00:12:52.299 --> 00:13:03.819
So the
expertise was already visible in the content, the page's foundational description wasn't explaining that strategic approach equally clearly.
00:13:04.219 --> 00:13:12.219
My recommendation was to bring the about section into line with the stronger positioning already evident in the content.
00:13:12.699 --> 00:13:22.620
Explain who the business serves, how its services and tools fit together, and the outcomes its approach is intended to support.
00:13:23.339 --> 00:13:33.019
When I reassessed the page in September, the banner, tagline, and overview told a much clearer and more consistent story.
00:13:33.419 --> 00:13:42.860
Strategy was positioned ahead of products, and the business was easier to understand as an exhibition and brand engagement partner.
00:13:43.579 --> 00:13:49.099
That was a visible improvement in how the page communicated the organization.
00:13:49.819 --> 00:13:51.899
There was also a next step.
00:13:52.139 --> 00:14:01.099
Much of the page activity still relied on sharing the founder, Roy Kowarski's personal posts and newsletters.
00:14:01.419 --> 00:14:11.899
That reinforced relevant expertise, but there was an opportunity for Out Their Branding to publish more evidence of its own work directly.
00:14:13.019 --> 00:14:24.379
I recommended client examples, case studies, exhibition outcomes, and explanations of how strategy influenced a project decision.
00:14:25.019 --> 00:14:29.099
The reports establish the improvement in positioning.
00:14:29.339 --> 00:14:38.139
They don't establish an increase in inquiries or sales, or that all of those further recommendations have been implemented.
00:14:38.539 --> 00:14:45.659
The useful outcome we can describe is a clearer, more coherent explanation of the business.
00:14:46.139 --> 00:14:50.860
That specificity makes the example credible.
00:14:51.099 --> 00:14:57.579
Someone can follow the diagnosis, the recommendation, and what the follow-up actually showed.
00:14:57.980 --> 00:15:00.699
It also demonstrates my own work.
00:15:01.019 --> 00:15:08.860
I'm showing how I assess a page, distinguish between different problems, and prioritize what to assess.
00:15:09.500 --> 00:15:12.699
Your own example might be a much smaller piece of work.
00:15:12.939 --> 00:15:20.059
You could have clarified a brief, identified a risk, or made a process easier for a team to follow.
00:15:20.459 --> 00:15:23.980
Explain your contribution accurately.
00:15:24.299 --> 00:15:28.459
If other people were involved, make their part clear too.
00:15:28.699 --> 00:15:36.939
And if an outcome is qualitative, describe the actual change rather than reaching for an impressive number.
00:15:37.500 --> 00:15:43.579
The practical lesson from Out Their Branding applies to personal profiles as well.
00:15:44.059 --> 00:15:49.339
Compare what you say you do with the evidence someone can find.
00:15:49.740 --> 00:15:54.939
Does that evidence support the expertise you want them to recognise?
00:15:56.219 --> 00:15:59.980
The fifth approach is about where the evidence lies.
00:16:00.299 --> 00:16:07.740
You may already have a useful article, a strong example, or a resource that demonstrates your approach.
00:16:07.980 --> 00:16:14.539
But if it's buried in months of activity, someone looking you up may never encounter it.
00:16:15.019 --> 00:16:18.939
Give your strongest evidence a deliberate home.
00:16:19.500 --> 00:16:25.819
On your LinkedIn profile, consider which examples belong in your featured section.
00:16:26.219 --> 00:16:33.339
Give each item a title and description that explain what someone will learn from it.
00:16:33.659 --> 00:16:39.019
A visitor needs enough context to understand why it's there.
00:16:39.740 --> 00:16:47.899
In experience, describe relevant contributions and changes alongside the scope of your role.
00:16:48.139 --> 00:16:55.419
If you say you're experienced in a particular area, look for a concrete example that supports that statement.
00:16:55.980 --> 00:17:06.380
For an organization, think about whether the company page offers examples published by the business itself as well as material shared from its people.
00:17:07.099 --> 00:17:15.099
As the out there branding assessment showed, both can contribute, but they serve somewhat different purposes.
00:17:15.900 --> 00:17:20.779
Your website can also provide a home for selected examples or resources.
00:17:21.019 --> 00:17:23.740
You don't need a large collection to begin.
00:17:24.059 --> 00:17:31.660
One well explained example can be more useful than a long list of unexplained links.
00:17:32.700 --> 00:17:36.220
Recommendations provide another form of evidence.
00:17:36.460 --> 00:17:47.259
When someone is willing to write one, invite them to describe the work you did together, your contribution, and the difference it made in their own words.
00:17:47.660 --> 00:17:52.860
That gives the reader more context than general praise alone.
00:17:53.900 --> 00:17:57.980
Keep your selection relevant to your current election.
00:17:58.299 --> 00:18:09.180
You may have excellent evidence of work you did 10 years ago, but if you're seeking different opportunities now, your most prominent examples need to support that direction.
00:18:09.899 --> 00:18:15.099
A practical test is to look at your profile as someone who doesn't know you.
00:18:15.339 --> 00:18:21.659
How quickly could they find an example that supports your main claim of evidence?
00:18:22.460 --> 00:18:24.940
We have covered five approaches.
00:18:25.259 --> 00:18:38.299
Answer a question using your judgment, explain a decision, show a useful piece of your work, describe your contribution to a problem, and make the evidence easy to find.
00:18:38.619 --> 00:18:42.619
You don't need to tackle all five right away.
00:18:43.099 --> 00:18:46.460
Choose one area you want to be known for.
00:18:46.700 --> 00:18:51.259
Then find one existing piece of evidence that supports it.
00:18:51.740 --> 00:18:59.980
It could be a question you've answered, a decision you've explained to a colleague, or a resource sitting in your files.
00:19:00.299 --> 00:19:06.700
It might be a piece of work that simply needs some context before another person understands its value.
00:19:06.940 --> 00:19:12.139
Explain what it shows and put it somewhere relevant that people can find it.
00:19:12.619 --> 00:19:18.139
You're giving them a basis for assessing whether your expertise fits their needs.
00:19:18.299 --> 00:19:24.220
They can see how you think, what you contribute, and why it might matter to them.
00:19:24.779 --> 00:19:34.539
If you'd like a starting point for reviewing the evidence you already have, you'll find the Linkability Authority audit through our resources page.
00:19:34.779 --> 00:19:37.259
The link for that is in the show notes.
00:19:37.579 --> 00:19:47.180
At Linkability, we work with professionals and organisations to make their expertise clearer and easier to discover on LinkedIn and through AI.
00:19:47.500 --> 00:19:54.539
If this episode has prompted you to look more closely at your own presence, you're very welcome to get in touch.