By Hiran de Silva
Every so often I find myself drawn into those familiar conversations on LinkedIn or in professional forums where Excel is being bashed. You know the kind: “Spreadsheets are dangerous,” “95% of them contain errors,” or “No serious company should rely on Excel.”
When I see these posts, I often contribute a different angle. Instead of attacking spreadsheets as inherently flawed, I suggest that many of the frustrations people experience are symptoms of design and architecture choices — and that Excel, when deployed with enterprise-grade architecture (think hub-and-spoke, client-server design, database integration), can in fact overcome the very issues being complained about.
And then… silence.
No “That’s interesting, could you explain more?”
No “I hadn’t considered that angle.”
Not even a polite disagreement.
Just… nothing.
It makes me wonder: what’s going on here?
Entrenched narratives
One possibility is that some threads are not really open conversations but rather political arenas. The original poster has set a tone — often anti-Excel — and the followers gather to reinforce that narrative. A contribution that disrupts the storyline is less welcome, not because it’s wrong, but because it doesn’t fit the flow.
Professional curiosity, or lack thereof?
Surely, in a professional community, curiosity should be a given. If someone introduces an alternative approach that directly addresses the problems being discussed, shouldn’t at least one person ask for elaboration? Isn’t that what professional dialogue is for — exploring the edges, challenging assumptions, broadening horizons?
Healthy debate or echo chamber?
The absence of engagement raises a question worth asking: are we having healthy professional debates, or are we reinforcing echo chambers? If ideas that don’t fit the prevailing narrative are met not with critique but with silence, then we may be missing opportunities for collective learning.
A call to reflect
I’m not suggesting that every idea deserves applause or that alternative views must be adopted. But surely they deserve acknowledgement, exploration, even respectful challenge. That is the essence of professional growth.
So here’s my question to the network:
When you encounter an unexpected or disruptive idea in a thread — do you engage with it, or do you scroll past because it doesn’t fit your prior assumptions?
And more importantly: what kind of professional culture do we want LinkedIn (and our industries) to be fostering?
Add comment