Good News for Young Strivers: Networking Is Overrated(nytimes.com)
nytimes.com
Good News for Young Strivers: Networking Is Overrated
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/24/opinion/sunday/networking-connections-business.html
114 comments
For most people, it's typically difficult to accomplish great things without mentorship and support. Which, in turn, typically require a network of some kind, whether it be family, teachers and classmates, or professional contacts.
I completely agree with this statement:
When I was president of the local robotics club we asked people who were building robots to tell us what we wanted them to accomplish. In my case I wanted a robot that would respond to a voice command for a Diet Dr Pepper, go fetch it, replace stock if the refrigerator was low, and bring it back to me. When I started that quest in the mid '80s it was a pretty tall order. Some people just said "you're crazy, that is too complicated for a robot to do." But the people who were worth listening too asked good questions like "Is it important that the refrigerator is general purpose or can you modify it to make it easier for the robot to access?" That led to ideas like the "Giant Tube of Sodas" refrigerator idea where soda was put into the tube at the top, the tube is wrapped in cooling coils, the bottom is easy access for a robot gripper. The questions and the mentorship I received not only taught me about some of the things I didn't know (like inverse kinematics for robotics) but also how to ask about what the real problem was versus the apparent problem (using a "regular" fridge is a lot harder problem than a custom fridge for example).
The people who are successful, and incidentally develop strong networks, are the ones that share what they are trying to accomplish and listen to the feedback; while not being discouraged by the "that's a stupid goal" type feedback.
> it's typically difficult to accomplish great things
> without mentorship and support.
When I was president of the local robotics club we asked people who were building robots to tell us what we wanted them to accomplish. In my case I wanted a robot that would respond to a voice command for a Diet Dr Pepper, go fetch it, replace stock if the refrigerator was low, and bring it back to me. When I started that quest in the mid '80s it was a pretty tall order. Some people just said "you're crazy, that is too complicated for a robot to do." But the people who were worth listening too asked good questions like "Is it important that the refrigerator is general purpose or can you modify it to make it easier for the robot to access?" That led to ideas like the "Giant Tube of Sodas" refrigerator idea where soda was put into the tube at the top, the tube is wrapped in cooling coils, the bottom is easy access for a robot gripper. The questions and the mentorship I received not only taught me about some of the things I didn't know (like inverse kinematics for robotics) but also how to ask about what the real problem was versus the apparent problem (using a "regular" fridge is a lot harder problem than a custom fridge for example).
The people who are successful, and incidentally develop strong networks, are the ones that share what they are trying to accomplish and listen to the feedback; while not being discouraged by the "that's a stupid goal" type feedback.
Building on that even, the most fun I have had at "networking" was listening to other developers talk about some of the problems they are working to solve in their jobs/areas of interest. Half the events I enjoy going to are partially motivated by "I wonder if so and so found away to fix x issue"
Technology used to be a bit more immune to cronyism in the past, now it's epidemic for anything above grunt positions - for grunts grueling interviews are in place, for higher ups it's now totally who knows whom and who does something for whom. I want to throw up every time my organization posts a new job position at a higher level and I get bombarded by managers inquiring if their friend or two can't get in there, bypassing whoever would be deserving the spot by working at a lower level - frankly, I don't understand how those people can look into a mirror...
It'll always move to "who you know" for the most desirable jobs regardless of industry. The top 5-10% are going to look exactly the same when you have a large number of resumes.
Especially very early in the career. A new grad will have top school, top grades, but one will have worked at McDonald's and the other at Burger King, a third at Wendy's. With people looking so similar, you'll need to decide on less meaningful stuff like who's recommended the applicant and trivia questions. One job I applied to had 1000 resumes, interviews for 100, full day interviews for 25, and hired 2. The 2 had family members who were CEO/Chairman level clients to firm.
For tech, there has been amazing amount of entrepreneurship where meritocracy rules, but for the big organizations it will be "who you know".
Especially very early in the career. A new grad will have top school, top grades, but one will have worked at McDonald's and the other at Burger King, a third at Wendy's. With people looking so similar, you'll need to decide on less meaningful stuff like who's recommended the applicant and trivia questions. One job I applied to had 1000 resumes, interviews for 100, full day interviews for 25, and hired 2. The 2 had family members who were CEO/Chairman level clients to firm.
For tech, there has been amazing amount of entrepreneurship where meritocracy rules, but for the big organizations it will be "who you know".
Its not about what you know.
Its not about who you know either.
Its about whom you can trust to solve problems and decide wisely -- It always has been and until there is a clearly rational way to evaluate trustworthiness to do an ambiguous job, it always will be.
Its not about who you know either.
Its about whom you can trust to solve problems and decide wisely -- It always has been and until there is a clearly rational way to evaluate trustworthiness to do an ambiguous job, it always will be.
It's always about who shares your own biases or persuades you his simulation of what you expect is adequate to fool you a'la Faceless Man.
> Technology used to be a bit more immune to cronyism in the past
No, I think this isn't the case. It certainly hasn't in the past couple of decades, unless you're thinking ridiculously further back. Even then, have you ever asked your mates "hey, do you know X, are they any good?"
No, I think this isn't the case. It certainly hasn't in the past couple of decades, unless you're thinking ridiculously further back. Even then, have you ever asked your mates "hey, do you know X, are they any good?"
After giving some examples of very poor networking efforts (if those can even be called that) the author moves on the the banal conclusion that networking is important, too, but you have to have something to say.
Nowadays, when I get a chance to mentor younglings my main point is that networking is a HUGE part of success (other important point being not to waste time on a PhD, but that's another topic). As with any effort you have to learn how to do it, of course. Harassing people for their contact info, etc. is a networking anti pattern.
Nowadays, when I get a chance to mentor younglings my main point is that networking is a HUGE part of success (other important point being not to waste time on a PhD, but that's another topic). As with any effort you have to learn how to do it, of course. Harassing people for their contact info, etc. is a networking anti pattern.
I agree: the article may well be right that a cold-calling style of 'networking' doesn't do much, but it doesn't seem to have anything to suggest that the good oldfashioned "having the right parents" kind is no good.
I think that's about right. I periodically get something along the lines of "I'm one of the 50,000 people who went to one of the same schools you did and I'm interested in a job at your company." I might exchange some info but I'm certainly not going to bat for someone I have a very peripheral connection with.
On the other hand, every job I've gotten since school has been very directly through someone I had worked with in some manner and knew well. In none of the cases did I go through a standard application process.
On the other hand, every job I've gotten since school has been very directly through someone I had worked with in some manner and knew well. In none of the cases did I go through a standard application process.
Why do you think PhD is a waste of time?
I would say that PHD is not a waste of time only if you plan to stay in academia. If writing papers and chasing grants is your jam, go for it.
If you are looking for one more thing for your CV, don't bother with phd.
If you are looking for one more thing for your CV, don't bother with phd.
Degree-less person here and vehemently disagree. Maybe across the field in general, but some of the most interesting areas of work have Ph.Ds and/or significant levels of domain experience as gatekeepers.
The main reason to do a PhD is for your own personal drive and satisfaction. Unless you value the work for its own sake, it is unlikely to pay off.
Even better: get into the PhD program and then drop out. You have all the signalling of being selected in a fancy PhD, but it also shows that you're practical and interested in work and industry.
Anec-data: me and several other PhD folks who all dropped out of CS/Stats/ML and got plenty of offers for jobs and funding. :)
Anec-data: me and several other PhD folks who all dropped out of CS/Stats/ML and got plenty of offers for jobs and funding. :)
How do you properly signal that you dropped out of a PhD program to distinguish yourself from someone with a Masters?
Maybe having few good papers/conference talks?
[deleted]
Generally speaking, you should get the qualifications you need for the job you want. If you want to be a software developer or program manager, a B.Sc. is sufficient and a PhD is overkill and a waste of time. If you want to be an academic or a scientist in industry, a PhD is essentially required.
...unless you are in Europe, where it's an almost required gate to upper management.
Only in Germany, certainly not in the UK - here Eton trumps PhD every day of the week.
I probably should have written in German-speaking countries.
I never understood the "reputation" component in the UK education that also made it to QS rankings where Oxbridge are propelled by near perfect reputation while lacking in other, more-academic categories.
I never understood the "reputation" component in the UK education that also made it to QS rankings where Oxbridge are propelled by near perfect reputation while lacking in other, more-academic categories.
Coincidentally I wrote a comment that explains it the other day https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15088782
Nah. Many high tech fields in the private sector recruit PhDs for research positions. Intel for example has a ton of them.
Shotgun networking, where you go to meetups just to get as much facetime and intro's as possible but with no real connection to people, is overrated.
But thoughtfully targeted networking where you're able to identify a small number of people who have something of unique value to you, and then bring something of similar value to them, resulting in a potential mutually high-value collaboration, is not overrated.
But thoughtfully targeted networking where you're able to identify a small number of people who have something of unique value to you, and then bring something of similar value to them, resulting in a potential mutually high-value collaboration, is not overrated.
[deleted]
The author conflates networking with shameless self-shilling. This makes for a pretty thin strawman.
Networking, in the sense of maintaining strong professional relationships and having a presence at professional events, creates a strong passive upwards pressure for someone who is talented. If you "spring to mind" as someone I can trust to "do X," or if you spring into the mind of the person I task with finding someone to "do X," then you are that much more likely to be offered the opportunity to "do X".
You may find the same kinds of "do X" opportunities through other means, but as X becomes increasingly specialized and requires more trust, networking becomes more and more important. For example, I can mass broadcast an ad for entry-level Java developers. I cannot do that to find a systems architect to design a high uptime, low latency, massive throughout web service. I'm likely to go to a short list for the latter and avoid interviews completely, if at all possible.
Obviously accomplishments are important. Accomplishment one of the foundations of a strong professional identity. Without evidence of your abilities, networking won't put you on anyone's short list. That's a catch-22, and you also need luck and the ability to inspire someone to take a chance on you to get your foot in the door. Both of those are improved dramatically by networking.
Networking, in the sense of maintaining strong professional relationships and having a presence at professional events, creates a strong passive upwards pressure for someone who is talented. If you "spring to mind" as someone I can trust to "do X," or if you spring into the mind of the person I task with finding someone to "do X," then you are that much more likely to be offered the opportunity to "do X".
You may find the same kinds of "do X" opportunities through other means, but as X becomes increasingly specialized and requires more trust, networking becomes more and more important. For example, I can mass broadcast an ad for entry-level Java developers. I cannot do that to find a systems architect to design a high uptime, low latency, massive throughout web service. I'm likely to go to a short list for the latter and avoid interviews completely, if at all possible.
Obviously accomplishments are important. Accomplishment one of the foundations of a strong professional identity. Without evidence of your abilities, networking won't put you on anyone's short list. That's a catch-22, and you also need luck and the ability to inspire someone to take a chance on you to get your foot in the door. Both of those are improved dramatically by networking.
> The author conflates networking with shameless self-shilling.
I found the same. Cold-calling and party tricks (like dropping businesscards into bags) is not 'networking'. It's one aspect of it, yes, but a minor one.
Not to mention that plenty of us know people who are awesome at their craft, yet never seem to get anywhere with it. Arguing from outliers like major pop stars means nothing for the 'real' people below them.
I found the same. Cold-calling and party tricks (like dropping businesscards into bags) is not 'networking'. It's one aspect of it, yes, but a minor one.
Not to mention that plenty of us know people who are awesome at their craft, yet never seem to get anywhere with it. Arguing from outliers like major pop stars means nothing for the 'real' people below them.
> The author conflates networking with shameless self-shilling. This makes for a pretty thin strawman.
Yeah, to build a lifelong network you need to get people to like you. This means you have to have something likable about you.
(I mean, I can be a huge arse and I've managed it, per other comment. If I can anyone can.)
Yeah, to build a lifelong network you need to get people to like you. This means you have to have something likable about you.
(I mean, I can be a huge arse and I've managed it, per other comment. If I can anyone can.)
The thing about networking is that good networking is extremely important, but that's not what "Networking" is.
In every job I have, I try to grab lunch with people everyday so that I can talk to them and get to know them. I also try to regularly meet new people in my field and get to know them. I've found that to be extremely valuable.
However, I've found going to networking events to be an extreme waste of time. The people who go usually aren't the successful professionals, which is who I want to meet. I've found going for drinks with friends- and their friends- to be much more valuable.
In every job I have, I try to grab lunch with people everyday so that I can talk to them and get to know them. I also try to regularly meet new people in my field and get to know them. I've found that to be extremely valuable.
However, I've found going to networking events to be an extreme waste of time. The people who go usually aren't the successful professionals, which is who I want to meet. I've found going for drinks with friends- and their friends- to be much more valuable.
So how does one break out of this catch-22?
How do you become a successful professional if you're never given the opportunity to earn trust where it is also visible enough to develop a strong network?
How do you become a successful professional if you're never given the opportunity to earn trust where it is also visible enough to develop a strong network?
Basically you start with people you interact with naturally and move outward from there. Schoolmates, co-workers, ex-co-workers. Present at events if you can create an opportunity to do so. Blog. And so forth.
It actually seems as if it's much easier today. At my first job in the tech industry, which I had for a long time, there were fewer opportunities to talk about what I was doing outside the company. (Although my next two jobs still came directly from people I met at that company.)
It actually seems as if it's much easier today. At my first job in the tech industry, which I had for a long time, there were fewer opportunities to talk about what I was doing outside the company. (Although my next two jobs still came directly from people I met at that company.)
Participate in a large Free Software project that interests you. You will meet a lot of people who work in your area and they will know what you can do.
I don't agree with the article's titular thesis or the rather extreme examples it uses. I attribute the majority of my career success thus far to my ability to make conversation and present my (often highly technical) ideas in an engaging and compelling way. Raw technical ability is excellent, but it's an inefficient method of capturing opportunities.
This article opens with a strong claim and several distasteful examples of desperate behavior associated with networking. But I wouldn't consider those "networking" in the general sense of the word; rather they are one stunt-based manifestation of it. Contrary to the article's point, you do not need to abandon networking to focus on being so good that you're attention getting. The examples given - Bieber and Adele being "found" through raw wow factor - do not resemble the way that networking organically occurs in the real world, and are very dependent on luck. Bieber and Adele would still be impressive successes if they had networked for it, and indeed the article concedes that many successful startup founders had a pre-established network in addition to their skillsets.
I think there's too much baggage attached to the idea of networking. You don't want to try and network as though it is a high-pressure sales tactic. Instead, focus on developing social skills and charisma. You also don't need to wait until you are extraordinary to network with people. There's no guideline for networking because there doesn't need to be one, it arises organically if you talk with people who have the same interests. There's another principle I have found with regards to networking - it is better to prioritize network quantity instead of quality. You want a minimum "quality" per contact, for sure, but you will find that access to extremely high quality contacts emerges in your network once you've hit a critical mass of people you can email on a first name basis (for example). If you're constantly trying to "collect" high-impact contacts without bootstrapping your way towards it organically, you'll be more pressured to pull the inane antics the article talks about.
In other words, and for practical advice: people seriously overthink networking and these examples of e.g. pitching a VC at an open mic event are not examples of organic networking. Just talk to people for the sake of talking to people. I have had incredible opportunities come to me and met awesome people because I wrote insightful Hacker News or reddit comments. Whenever I can I try to email someone who is talking about something I'm interested in.
This article opens with a strong claim and several distasteful examples of desperate behavior associated with networking. But I wouldn't consider those "networking" in the general sense of the word; rather they are one stunt-based manifestation of it. Contrary to the article's point, you do not need to abandon networking to focus on being so good that you're attention getting. The examples given - Bieber and Adele being "found" through raw wow factor - do not resemble the way that networking organically occurs in the real world, and are very dependent on luck. Bieber and Adele would still be impressive successes if they had networked for it, and indeed the article concedes that many successful startup founders had a pre-established network in addition to their skillsets.
I think there's too much baggage attached to the idea of networking. You don't want to try and network as though it is a high-pressure sales tactic. Instead, focus on developing social skills and charisma. You also don't need to wait until you are extraordinary to network with people. There's no guideline for networking because there doesn't need to be one, it arises organically if you talk with people who have the same interests. There's another principle I have found with regards to networking - it is better to prioritize network quantity instead of quality. You want a minimum "quality" per contact, for sure, but you will find that access to extremely high quality contacts emerges in your network once you've hit a critical mass of people you can email on a first name basis (for example). If you're constantly trying to "collect" high-impact contacts without bootstrapping your way towards it organically, you'll be more pressured to pull the inane antics the article talks about.
In other words, and for practical advice: people seriously overthink networking and these examples of e.g. pitching a VC at an open mic event are not examples of organic networking. Just talk to people for the sake of talking to people. I have had incredible opportunities come to me and met awesome people because I wrote insightful Hacker News or reddit comments. Whenever I can I try to email someone who is talking about something I'm interested in.
"Networking makes us feel dirty — to the point that one study found that people rate soap and toothpaste 19 percent more positively after imagining themselves angling to make professional contacts at a cocktail party."
Really? If you're around unpleasant people, sure, but I at least have typically enjoyed meeting new people in the industry. "Networking" is just another word for "having a conversation."
The implication of this piece is unclear to me. Most people, by definition, are average and aren't going to suddenly pop out masterpiece whatevers that bring them fame and fortune. You'd think a little networking wouldn't hurt. It's better than staying at home and staring at the TV, right?
Really? If you're around unpleasant people, sure, but I at least have typically enjoyed meeting new people in the industry. "Networking" is just another word for "having a conversation."
The implication of this piece is unclear to me. Most people, by definition, are average and aren't going to suddenly pop out masterpiece whatevers that bring them fame and fortune. You'd think a little networking wouldn't hurt. It's better than staying at home and staring at the TV, right?
Networking makes us feel dirty — to the point that one study found that people rate soap and toothpaste 19 percent more positively after imagining themselves angling to make professional contacts at a cocktail party.
Tip for writers: if you can use the same data to just as reasonably arrive at the opposite conclusion - "we want to feel clean and presentable before impressing other people" - then don't present your vague conjecture as fact. The article started to lose me as soon as I read this part. It was like a red flag of bad journalism went up.
People who have something to show for themselves find networking easier than people who are faking it? Sure, I believe that, but that's hardly news.
Tip for writers: if you can use the same data to just as reasonably arrive at the opposite conclusion - "we want to feel clean and presentable before impressing other people" - then don't present your vague conjecture as fact. The article started to lose me as soon as I read this part. It was like a red flag of bad journalism went up.
People who have something to show for themselves find networking easier than people who are faking it? Sure, I believe that, but that's hardly news.
The author uses several musical examples, and I've worked as a professional musician for a long, long time.
Waiting for a music exec or manager to somehow hear your work is a terrible strategy. On average, if you wait around to be discovered, you'll be waiting a long time.
In music, networking is hugely important to being successful. Going to people's gigs, meeting others, and similar was hugely important for me to establish myself as a working musician when I moved across the country last year. But, effective networking is most necessary and productive in "gig" type economies.
In tech, meetups and such aren't always great networking opportunities because the way most technical people collaborate is in the work environment, and most people change jobs rarely. Contrast this with most musical relationships, where it's much easier to exchange information and call a new person for a gig, which happens many times per week usually.
I'm sensitive to this because early in my music career, I severely undervalued the value of networking, and watched many of my colleagues (all of whom were excellent at networking) get good gigs and opportunities. As soon as I realized I was undervaluing networking, I made a correction, and subsequently have had a much more satisfying life as a musician.
Waiting for a music exec or manager to somehow hear your work is a terrible strategy. On average, if you wait around to be discovered, you'll be waiting a long time.
In music, networking is hugely important to being successful. Going to people's gigs, meeting others, and similar was hugely important for me to establish myself as a working musician when I moved across the country last year. But, effective networking is most necessary and productive in "gig" type economies.
In tech, meetups and such aren't always great networking opportunities because the way most technical people collaborate is in the work environment, and most people change jobs rarely. Contrast this with most musical relationships, where it's much easier to exchange information and call a new person for a gig, which happens many times per week usually.
I'm sensitive to this because early in my music career, I severely undervalued the value of networking, and watched many of my colleagues (all of whom were excellent at networking) get good gigs and opportunities. As soon as I realized I was undervaluing networking, I made a correction, and subsequently have had a much more satisfying life as a musician.
I've worked almost a dozen jobs and internships. Starting from mowing lawns in high school, every single one was at least partly attributable to knowing someone.
I've just written a book. (It's about social implications of a technology.) Pretty much all the sales I'm making are networking, one way or another. It's a good book! People who read it love it! But it's self-published, and I haven't worked out how the heck to get people to write about it, and so my sales are all word of mouth from happy readers. It's just become a college textbook (!!) so I'm doing at least something right ...
Writing it was the same. I posted the whole draft to my Facebook in chunks, and this improved it amazingly, because my friends, like yours, are querulous nerds, and my goodness a querulous nerd given permission to be as querulous as they like, well. But I'm 50, and I've spent a few decades accumulating hundreds of contacts who are smart people who are experts in things that I'm not. And I totally relied on them to make this not suck.
I'm a huge nerd. But even my beep-boop sysadmin day job is, frankly, 50% public relations and getting people to do stuff because they feel they should because I asked nicely. Networking.
When I started, I too was bereft of network. But my first IT job was courtesy ... networking! And my second. And my third.
tl;dr Do your damnedest to be a social supernode. Make sure you know everyone, such that if you don't then you'll know someone who does. And keep in touch with them. It'll pay off big down the line.
(I went through Facebook last week and visited the pages of every one of the 1000+ people I have friended, to say hi and see what they were up to. Don't trust The Algorithm to maintain your relationships.)
Writing it was the same. I posted the whole draft to my Facebook in chunks, and this improved it amazingly, because my friends, like yours, are querulous nerds, and my goodness a querulous nerd given permission to be as querulous as they like, well. But I'm 50, and I've spent a few decades accumulating hundreds of contacts who are smart people who are experts in things that I'm not. And I totally relied on them to make this not suck.
I'm a huge nerd. But even my beep-boop sysadmin day job is, frankly, 50% public relations and getting people to do stuff because they feel they should because I asked nicely. Networking.
When I started, I too was bereft of network. But my first IT job was courtesy ... networking! And my second. And my third.
tl;dr Do your damnedest to be a social supernode. Make sure you know everyone, such that if you don't then you'll know someone who does. And keep in touch with them. It'll pay off big down the line.
(I went through Facebook last week and visited the pages of every one of the 1000+ people I have friended, to say hi and see what they were up to. Don't trust The Algorithm to maintain your relationships.)
"Please don't use uppercase for emphasis. If you want to emphasize a word or phrase, put asterisks around it and it will get italicized."
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Well, I was meaning to shout that ;-) But thank you. Changed to italics.
What's the name of your book?
Looks like if you look at his profile it's linked there. I've put it below for simplicity.
Attack of the 50 Foot Blockchain https://www.amazon.com/dp/B073CPP581/
Attack of the 50 Foot Blockchain https://www.amazon.com/dp/B073CPP581/
I was trying not to be spammy :-) It's in my profile.
I can attribute a lot of my professional value to my professional and even personal network. I've found they key is to network before you need to network so you're not always looking for something. That way you can look for ways to provide value and serve your network. That's how you build solid relationships.
Networking is like smoking, people like doing it and when people like doing things they start thinking that it is actually beneficial.
Isn't this just math?
Networking is a system for making connections. Desirable connections are relatively rare. The pool of people networking is full of people trying to make desirable connections but has a small amount of people whom are desirable to network with. The more people there are "trying to network," the fewer desirable connections as a percentage of total connections there will be, assuming an even remotely chaotic coupling.
I've met a lot (a lot) of people who I would have no interest networking with. I'm sure for more valuable targets, the number is orders of magnitude higher.
Networking is a system for making connections. Desirable connections are relatively rare. The pool of people networking is full of people trying to make desirable connections but has a small amount of people whom are desirable to network with. The more people there are "trying to network," the fewer desirable connections as a percentage of total connections there will be, assuming an even remotely chaotic coupling.
I've met a lot (a lot) of people who I would have no interest networking with. I'm sure for more valuable targets, the number is orders of magnitude higher.
> "And don’t feel pressure to go to networking events. No one really mixes at mixers. Although we plan to meet new people, we usually end up hanging out with old friends."
Well yes, if you choose to. I wish the article could keep the focus of the positive effects that creating great things leads to, and not try to position it as an opposite of networking.
Networking is gold. Networkers that also produce extraordinary things will get even better results.
Well yes, if you choose to. I wish the article could keep the focus of the positive effects that creating great things leads to, and not try to position it as an opposite of networking.
Networking is gold. Networkers that also produce extraordinary things will get even better results.
Some of the other comments here focus on the poor examples of networking.
What about the larger point: that networking is an effect of achievement, not a cause.
If the author is correct, even "good" networking is not as effective as making something worth making. (I assume that this "maker" bias is intuitively appealing to the larger HN community.)
What about the larger point: that networking is an effect of achievement, not a cause.
If the author is correct, even "good" networking is not as effective as making something worth making. (I assume that this "maker" bias is intuitively appealing to the larger HN community.)
Not necessarily. You can do great networking without having built anything.
Say you are a student. Some startup founder starts a business where she targets college students. You like her business. You then reach out to her telling her you are emailing all students in your dept via internal dept email list or FB groups to let them know about her startup.
That's great networking. That person will help you in future for sure. And you haven't really built anything yet.
Say you are a student. Some startup founder starts a business where she targets college students. You like her business. You then reach out to her telling her you are emailing all students in your dept via internal dept email list or FB groups to let them know about her startup.
That's great networking. That person will help you in future for sure. And you haven't really built anything yet.
But at the same time, your fellow students will put you on an email blacklist :)
Will they help you for sure? Or only if they know you are good at what you do?
I think if you put some effort to help people, you will get help regardless of your skills by many of them. But that help will not be that useful in the long run if you don't have the skills to take advantage of it.
Stupid example: if you have helped me in the past, and then ask me for a referral at my company, I will certainly do it regardless of your skills and I will get you an interview. But then it is up to you to pass the interview. Networking opens up opportunities. It doesn't make you successful. If you randomly meet me at a conference and ask for referral, I won't do it.
And that's really the kind of networking 95% of people are looking for. It is not meet the #1 investor in the world or similar.
Stupid example: if you have helped me in the past, and then ask me for a referral at my company, I will certainly do it regardless of your skills and I will get you an interview. But then it is up to you to pass the interview. Networking opens up opportunities. It doesn't make you successful. If you randomly meet me at a conference and ask for referral, I won't do it.
And that's really the kind of networking 95% of people are looking for. It is not meet the #1 investor in the world or similar.
From one of the sources of the article: [1]
>> In Study 1, White and Asian nonnative speakers using the same scripted responses as native speakers were found to be significantly less likely to be recommended for a middle-management position, and this bias was fully mediated by assessments of their political skill.
>> Nonnative speakers were found to have a significantly lower likelihood of receiving new-venture funding
That's an interesting bias, I wonder if/how it varies by accents, as those can be quite different. Are foreign accents from countries where English is still a major language like U.K., Australia, India, ..., perceived differently than foreign accents from non english-speaking countries?
[1] http://psycnet.apa.org/record/2013-28924-001
>> In Study 1, White and Asian nonnative speakers using the same scripted responses as native speakers were found to be significantly less likely to be recommended for a middle-management position, and this bias was fully mediated by assessments of their political skill.
>> Nonnative speakers were found to have a significantly lower likelihood of receiving new-venture funding
That's an interesting bias, I wonder if/how it varies by accents, as those can be quite different. Are foreign accents from countries where English is still a major language like U.K., Australia, India, ..., perceived differently than foreign accents from non english-speaking countries?
[1] http://psycnet.apa.org/record/2013-28924-001
If anything, this article only highlights the fact that it's very difficult to get the attention of investors. It demonstrates how important networking has become but I do understand the point about 'empty connections' - I've tried the cold approach in the past.
What it says basically is that you have to be really talented first and have done a lot of work... After that all you can do is wait and hope that you get lucky; try to network slowly but don't try too hard to the point of scaring away investors.
In my case, I started an open source project, it's somewhat popular within its niche - To most people it means nothing at all but on a few occasions I met people who knew about my project and when I told them about my work their eyes lit up and they treated me quite positively (E.g. they try to hire me).
What it says basically is that you have to be really talented first and have done a lot of work... After that all you can do is wait and hope that you get lucky; try to network slowly but don't try too hard to the point of scaring away investors.
In my case, I started an open source project, it's somewhat popular within its niche - To most people it means nothing at all but on a few occasions I met people who knew about my project and when I told them about my work their eyes lit up and they treated me quite positively (E.g. they try to hire me).
This is a very interesting piece and true as well but with a catch.
The article seems to advising students not to Network and just focus on building a product or a solution that is worthy of attention. But if you read it carefully, it actually not saying so. The title itself says that Networking is overrated, it doesn't say it's useless.
To build a strong Network a combination of three things are needed:
#1: Character - How you treat others #2: Competence - How good you are at something #3: Consistency - How are you able to stay connect with your network
This article is about the second element of competence, it not reducing the value of other two, rather is advising students not to reduce the value of competence.
All three have equal weight and if students start to rely just on networking, they may struggle. That is a fair point.
Good piece.
Paritosh Pathak Strategic Networking Coach
The article seems to advising students not to Network and just focus on building a product or a solution that is worthy of attention. But if you read it carefully, it actually not saying so. The title itself says that Networking is overrated, it doesn't say it's useless.
To build a strong Network a combination of three things are needed:
#1: Character - How you treat others #2: Competence - How good you are at something #3: Consistency - How are you able to stay connect with your network
This article is about the second element of competence, it not reducing the value of other two, rather is advising students not to reduce the value of competence.
All three have equal weight and if students start to rely just on networking, they may struggle. That is a fair point.
Good piece.
Paritosh Pathak Strategic Networking Coach
I agree about networking being overrated.
What's better than networking is being good at your job, enjoying it, and enjoying working with those around you.
If you do those things, you'll have the network you need.
If you don't, get serious about finding it.
What's better than networking is being good at your job, enjoying it, and enjoying working with those around you.
If you do those things, you'll have the network you need.
If you don't, get serious about finding it.
Tldr, networking is not overrated, just poorly implemented by many.
Poor choice of title for a good article. If you enjoyed this article and like to learn to implement value added techniques I suggest Ramit Sethi's blog iwillteachyoutoberich, not the scam it sounds like lol.
Building a network is important to increase opportunities. It's much easier to be on the receiving end of people wanting to connect with you once people know you can provide value/you have accomplished something they are interested in.
Poor choice of title for a good article. If you enjoyed this article and like to learn to implement value added techniques I suggest Ramit Sethi's blog iwillteachyoutoberich, not the scam it sounds like lol.
Building a network is important to increase opportunities. It's much easier to be on the receiving end of people wanting to connect with you once people know you can provide value/you have accomplished something they are interested in.
Networking is Marketing for humans, and most here understand how the Product-Marketing relationship works for apps. There isn't much point in marketing if you, the product, have no value to the customer. Also it follows that some people's product is their ability to market. These are the anomalies to the title, and these are the ones we see networking all the time, the schmoozers.
Networking, when defined as a competition of who can speak the most about themselves has little value.
Networking, when defined as a practice of always adding value first, and seeking other similar givers to build your network around is invaluable. Takers are everywhere and learning to recognize and filter them as needed is a critical skill.
Networking, when defined as a practice of always adding value first, and seeking other similar givers to build your network around is invaluable. Takers are everywhere and learning to recognize and filter them as needed is a critical skill.
From the world of politics, and government relations, it is nearly impossible to get anything done, or rapid career advancement (save getting elected to public office) without networking. My world is built on who you know, and being able to reach other people you don't know when you need to.
Confucius said it better and shorter 2500 years ago:
Instead of being concerned that you have no office, be concerned to think how you may fit yourself for office. Instead of being concerned that you are not known, seek to be worthy of being known.
Instead of being concerned that you have no office, be concerned to think how you may fit yourself for office. Instead of being concerned that you are not known, seek to be worthy of being known.
Horrible article. Networking doesn't mean asking someone for her email address or exchanging business cards.
Networking means creating meaningful relationships based on mutual benefits. If you are in a position to help someone, help her. She will then help you back later on when she can. And this is by no means overrated. If anything is underrated.
Networking means creating meaningful relationships based on mutual benefits. If you are in a position to help someone, help her. She will then help you back later on when she can. And this is by no means overrated. If anything is underrated.
I completely agree. In my career so far I have had six different jobs. Five of them came from personal connections with people who I had directly worked with before, either professionally or as a student. Two of them didn't even require interviews!
Its the Mafia way. When they need something done they don't look in the Yellow Pages. They know a guy - a wiseguy - and he or she either owes them a favour already, or wants to have a favour in the bank. This is how I manage my career.
Perhaps. But you should experience some of the "networking" advice that is foisted on the average job-seeker, fresh out of college or otherwise.
One reason it is difficult for some people; it reeks of superficiality if not insincerity.
One reason it is difficult for some people; it reeks of superficiality if not insincerity.
Yeah, there are explicit "networking events," which are generally horrible because there's no subtlety to them.
Then there's tech meetups or conferences, where you and I might nerd out over common problems we've had to solve, and in the process realise that we might enjoy working with the other person.
The thing is, one has to put in the work and put themself out there. Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity.
Then there's tech meetups or conferences, where you and I might nerd out over common problems we've had to solve, and in the process realise that we might enjoy working with the other person.
The thing is, one has to put in the work and put themself out there. Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity.
Yes. But college/university career counseling staffs and unemployment bureaus of various sorts and the like leave a lot of people with an early, negative impression of networking.
People who may have had a lot of opportunity in their life/careers and who tend to fall into productive and interesting networking scenarios, should at least know that for a lot of the... well, I can really only speak for the U.S.... by dint of experience, "networking" -- at least as a formal and promoted activity -- is a dirty word.
And having quickly looked at the OP story, I also recall some very uncomfortable feelings, watching someone aggressively pursue a senior executive's email or phone number. E.g. this fellow or gal comes to a friend's purely social event, and ends up having to handle undesired and poorly couched attempts at professional connections.
And the few times I've been talked into attempting to "work the system" in such a fashion? Still make me shudder.
P.S. Or the person who's picked up their license as a mortgage broker, and the conversations you attempt to dance around whenever your own looming home purchase comes up. And...
Even at the everyday level, a side of "networking" that's kind of a pain to deal with.
Anyway... I mostly agree with the article. Have something they're genuinely interested in.
People who may have had a lot of opportunity in their life/careers and who tend to fall into productive and interesting networking scenarios, should at least know that for a lot of the... well, I can really only speak for the U.S.... by dint of experience, "networking" -- at least as a formal and promoted activity -- is a dirty word.
And having quickly looked at the OP story, I also recall some very uncomfortable feelings, watching someone aggressively pursue a senior executive's email or phone number. E.g. this fellow or gal comes to a friend's purely social event, and ends up having to handle undesired and poorly couched attempts at professional connections.
And the few times I've been talked into attempting to "work the system" in such a fashion? Still make me shudder.
P.S. Or the person who's picked up their license as a mortgage broker, and the conversations you attempt to dance around whenever your own looming home purchase comes up. And...
Even at the everyday level, a side of "networking" that's kind of a pain to deal with.
Anyway... I mostly agree with the article. Have something they're genuinely interested in.
Everyone at a networking event is looking for a leg up, but the people who have something to trade don't attend networking events.
Sorry to nit-pick but perhaps try
- "them" instead of "her"
- "they" instead of "she"
Much more gender-neutral this way - no implications (intentional or non-intentional) about someone needing help because they are female.
- "them" instead of "her"
- "they" instead of "she"
Much more gender-neutral this way - no implications (intentional or non-intentional) about someone needing help because they are female.
An honest attempt to be politically sensitive (say 'she' instead of 'he' sometimes) gets put down for not going far enough.
Not helping the cause here.
The point I was trying to make is when referring to unspecified third-persons, dont say "help her". Say "help them".
Women are often unfairly stereotyped as being less-skilled or less-capable than their male counter-parts in our industry. Suggesting those that need help are female is just the thin-end of the wedge on this and may go unnoticed by those using it - a "micro-aggression" as it is now being called - but it furthers the entrenched stereotyping.
Using well-accepted gender neutral pronouns is a simple step to avoid this sort of thing and try and promote equality and diversity in our industry.
If I have offended anyone, sorry - that was not the intention. The intention was to promote gender equality and make our industry more welcoming to all genders.
Women are often unfairly stereotyped as being less-skilled or less-capable than their male counter-parts in our industry. Suggesting those that need help are female is just the thin-end of the wedge on this and may go unnoticed by those using it - a "micro-aggression" as it is now being called - but it furthers the entrenched stereotyping.
Using well-accepted gender neutral pronouns is a simple step to avoid this sort of thing and try and promote equality and diversity in our industry.
If I have offended anyone, sorry - that was not the intention. The intention was to promote gender equality and make our industry more welcoming to all genders.
"Well-accepted" is a bit of a stretch. Maybe increasingly-accepted. Personally I favor the use of the singular they. There's precedent with "you" and it seems mostly preferable to alternatives like he/she or just picking arbitrary genders as was done here.
But I'm also not going to correct someone who doesn't use singular they (unless it's in a situation where they should be following a particular style guide that specifies it).
But I'm also not going to correct someone who doesn't use singular they (unless it's in a situation where they should be following a particular style guide that specifies it).
The problem with these things is that you end up stop writing or even talking cause you get so concerned about offending others...
English is not my mother tongue, and I actually thought here I was being sensitive, cause putting "he" would have implied only males are career oriented, etc. Didn't occur to me I could have put they.
English is not my mother tongue, and I actually thought here I was being sensitive, cause putting "he" would have implied only males are career oriented, etc. Didn't occur to me I could have put they.
[deleted]
Correct, avoid people they will suck your time and energy. Be very selfish with your time, you will never get a nano-second back
Um. I guess it depends on what you are optimizing for?
In my case I need time for my family, time for my friends, time for my work as a developer, time for research, time to complete work to get paid. I get requests for work that I have to turn people away so you are correct it isn't what I am optimising for, Networking is very far down the list ;)
The article gives example of Justin Bieber and Adele. For those two examples, there are hundreds who got where they are just because they knew someone important. Miley Cyrus, Jaden Smith, Charlie Sheen, Ben Stiller, Angelina Jolie, Paris Hilton. Actors/singers make very poor examples for this given that most of them mostly get to where they are by networking more than anything else.
Lets say there was an absolute master of his profession that nobody knows. Compare that to someone who knows enough to get by when it comes to his profession but knows most people there is to know in the industry. In general, which one is more likely to get hired? Who will have better references? Who is likely to know about vacancies before they are announced? Are companies willing to hire someone because he answered more question in a test even vs who did OK but has a lot of good references from respectable people, some of whom they personally know?
Someone who only cares about a better paying job should spend 90% of their time in networking and 10% on honing their profession because networking is all that matters. Someone who absolutely loves their work will happily do their share of work for a lower pay.
Lets say there was an absolute master of his profession that nobody knows. Compare that to someone who knows enough to get by when it comes to his profession but knows most people there is to know in the industry. In general, which one is more likely to get hired? Who will have better references? Who is likely to know about vacancies before they are announced? Are companies willing to hire someone because he answered more question in a test even vs who did OK but has a lot of good references from respectable people, some of whom they personally know?
Someone who only cares about a better paying job should spend 90% of their time in networking and 10% on honing their profession because networking is all that matters. Someone who absolutely loves their work will happily do their share of work for a lower pay.
I was about to write a very similar comment to yours.
My father is a remarkably talented guitarist. I used to think he was "good" as a kid, but it wasn't until I was older that I realized just how "good" he actually was. I vividly remember being home from college over the holidays one year, listening to some Rory Gallagher ('74 Irish Tour), and he just casually started following along with Rory's lead in Tatoo'd Lady. That's when it first clicked to me.
He was born in NYC and did all the terrible things that any kid would do in NYC in the '70s. But when my brother and I were suddenly a thing my parents picked up and moved north to the Adirondacks so that we, presumably, wouldn't do all the terrible things that any kid would do in NYC in the '80s.
While there is obviously no telling whether or not he would have become a successful musician by staying down in the city, there is no doubt in my mind that he was, in some small way, giving up on his dream by moving out of the city in an effort to give us a chance at a more, I suppose "wholesome", life as kids.
My father is a remarkably talented guitarist. I used to think he was "good" as a kid, but it wasn't until I was older that I realized just how "good" he actually was. I vividly remember being home from college over the holidays one year, listening to some Rory Gallagher ('74 Irish Tour), and he just casually started following along with Rory's lead in Tatoo'd Lady. That's when it first clicked to me.
He was born in NYC and did all the terrible things that any kid would do in NYC in the '70s. But when my brother and I were suddenly a thing my parents picked up and moved north to the Adirondacks so that we, presumably, wouldn't do all the terrible things that any kid would do in NYC in the '80s.
While there is obviously no telling whether or not he would have become a successful musician by staying down in the city, there is no doubt in my mind that he was, in some small way, giving up on his dream by moving out of the city in an effort to give us a chance at a more, I suppose "wholesome", life as kids.
Right, the point is, your dad is interchangeable with most of the 'successful' people in music. Unfortunately, this is always true for subjective creative endeavors.
I would add that many of the very best artists owe their careers to knowing the right person at the critical moment.
In a recent interview, composer Randy Newman explained how childhood connections got him into the business:
"Newman started writing songs because his childhood friend Lenny Waronker, who later became the president of Warner Bros. Records, suggested that he try it. “He knew who Carole King was and stuff. His dad had started a record company,” Newman said."
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/08/21/randy-newman-co...
He is brilliant, but might have gone unnoticed if his best buddy had not been a second-generation record company executive.
In a recent interview, composer Randy Newman explained how childhood connections got him into the business:
"Newman started writing songs because his childhood friend Lenny Waronker, who later became the president of Warner Bros. Records, suggested that he try it. “He knew who Carole King was and stuff. His dad had started a record company,” Newman said."
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/08/21/randy-newman-co...
He is brilliant, but might have gone unnoticed if his best buddy had not been a second-generation record company executive.
brilliance and hard work guarantee absolutely nothing
The funny thing is that people get angry when the same logic is applied to tech legends.
Wozniak would have stayed in HP and probsbly remained fairly unknown if Jobs had not convinced him to start Apple with him.
Wozniak would have stayed in HP and probsbly remained fairly unknown if Jobs had not convinced him to start Apple with him.
And vice versa. Jobs got where he was by (not likely coincidentally) finding a person with Woz's combination of genius and gullibility. Woz didn't get a remotely fair shake from Jobs, and there are not a ton of guys dumb enough to ride that ride and smart enough to deliver what Woz delivered.
Woz isn't dumb, just had different priorities in life. If you sum up the total happiness over the course of Jobs and Woz lives, Woz might come out ahead.
An excellent point. Who's the smart one at the end of the day? Woz seems to have all the money he needs and all the fame I think he can stand. There's a lot to be said for quitting while you're ahead.
Fame does not bode well for some archetypes. Some of us are really better off actively avoiding the spotlight.
Woz+Jobs were a partnership, not cronyism. Both are people coming together to build something, but cronyism is when certain people are elevated over others for personal reasons unrelated to thei contribution to the work.
> Someone who only cares about a better paying job should spend 90% of their time in networking and 10% on honing their profession because networking is all that matters. Someone who absolutely loves their work will happily do their share of work for a lower pay.
As depressing as this seems, it does really seem to be the case. And it seems to be even more accentuated for non-programming jobs. At least in software, we have some kind of test (as flawed as it might be).
As depressing as this seems, it does really seem to be the case. And it seems to be even more accentuated for non-programming jobs. At least in software, we have some kind of test (as flawed as it might be).
I don't even know why the article would consider Bieber as a of case not networking. The article itself states that his career took off when he signed with Usher.
Likewise the Spanx lady "didn't stalk" Oprah but she did successfully send her free samples, which presumably required some research (ie. stalking).
This sums up everything I've seen so far: academia, companies, and startups. It makes one very cynical after experiencing how much things are driven by PR.
Academia is less so than the others. The main thresholds of ability is determined by publications and grants. Both of those are peer-reviewed in a fair way (either blind reviewed, or where the conflict of interests have to leave the room). You can be amazingly successful being a no name who publishes and gets funding.
Can being related to someone already famous really be considered networking, though? I always think of networking as actively going out and making new contacts. Being born with a contact to an industry is just luck.
[deleted]
Have you ever known two relatives who hated each other?
Only reason Justin Bieber made it big is because he hung out with Usher.
Networking is one the most expensive forms of advertising. If a better paying job is what you are after, spending 90% of your time on networking doesn't sound like an efficient or even a good idea. Instead focus on building your brand, doing PR, writing articles, speaking at various events, etc., basically focus on becoming a rockstar and wait for offers to come to you.
How do you get invited to events, get people to read your articles, connect to the upblic, and build your brand, without networking?
Through other channels, the same way people know about anyone famous without ever networking with them. For example, it's much cheaper to submit your article to a bunch of websites, mention it in comments on various platforms, advertise it on Google, Facebook, than to network with people and ask them to read it.
I hope all my competition believes as much.
I can't tell if the author has identified a straw man or a weak man, but I don't think serious, accomplished people give out the advice that successful networking = acting like a pest and creating hollow relationships.
Maybe we need a better way to describe networking, right now we use the same work to describe establishing credibility and rapport with like minded people and attempting to become a barnacle / remora on a successful person.
I don't know if I've ever consciously networked, but seeking out like-minded people and engaging them with interesting discussion / ideas has served me well. Though I work in a technical capacity and it does seem as though people-management is qualitatively different but not completely divorced.
I've seen talentless hacks rise up (or fail up?) but the success was never sustainable and for some reason, all those people never saved enough money for the inevitable rainy day: they blow something up or lose a game of executive musical chairs, leave, and can't swindle their way into a comparable job.
However, it's been my experience that the vast majority of executives who have held onto their executive position for longer than 2 power struggles are very deserving of the position. Sure, a lot of them let off the gas relative to the performance that got them into their role. But they're extraordinarily capable people.
The only way to really sustain positive career trajectory is through accomplishment (and unfortunately, accomplishment isn't a guarantee of a successful career). And if you can't do that, you have to skate by on 'luck'.
Cronyism seems to ebb and flow, I think there's a lot of it right now because most businesses aren't that competitive. But if we get some creative destruction going, we'll see the balance of power shift more decisively towards makers and doers.
One trend that I've seen in the past 3 years that I like a lot is more salary growth opportunity for technical employees. 5 years ago, I saw a lot of companies stall people out, "if you want to make more money you have to become a manager". But a lot of companies lost a lot of talent and now they're correcting their dumb policy.
How is this related to network? It's just a consideration and optimization problem (and maybe a problem that maps well to your sociability) but networking shouldn't be a 4 letter word. If you're not enjoying it, you'll probably be well-rewarded to find a way to make it more enjoyable and that's pretty easy if you enjoy some element of your profession.
I'm reminded of The Last Psychiatrist's article, "This Is Why The American Dream Is Out Of Reach". It's also about a NYT article.
http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2010/08/this_is_why_the_ameri...
there's a deeper problem: people see personal connections and favors as key path to prosperity. Sure, they help. But the most lucrative opportunities aren't the chance to meet someone important, the most lucrative opportunities are those that involve solving a problem. How much time do parasites put into networking? I bet it's more time than they put into starting a new business or doing something.
I can't tell if the author has identified a straw man or a weak man, but I don't think serious, accomplished people give out the advice that successful networking = acting like a pest and creating hollow relationships.
Maybe we need a better way to describe networking, right now we use the same work to describe establishing credibility and rapport with like minded people and attempting to become a barnacle / remora on a successful person.
I don't know if I've ever consciously networked, but seeking out like-minded people and engaging them with interesting discussion / ideas has served me well. Though I work in a technical capacity and it does seem as though people-management is qualitatively different but not completely divorced.
I've seen talentless hacks rise up (or fail up?) but the success was never sustainable and for some reason, all those people never saved enough money for the inevitable rainy day: they blow something up or lose a game of executive musical chairs, leave, and can't swindle their way into a comparable job.
However, it's been my experience that the vast majority of executives who have held onto their executive position for longer than 2 power struggles are very deserving of the position. Sure, a lot of them let off the gas relative to the performance that got them into their role. But they're extraordinarily capable people.
The only way to really sustain positive career trajectory is through accomplishment (and unfortunately, accomplishment isn't a guarantee of a successful career). And if you can't do that, you have to skate by on 'luck'.
Cronyism seems to ebb and flow, I think there's a lot of it right now because most businesses aren't that competitive. But if we get some creative destruction going, we'll see the balance of power shift more decisively towards makers and doers.
One trend that I've seen in the past 3 years that I like a lot is more salary growth opportunity for technical employees. 5 years ago, I saw a lot of companies stall people out, "if you want to make more money you have to become a manager". But a lot of companies lost a lot of talent and now they're correcting their dumb policy.
How is this related to network? It's just a consideration and optimization problem (and maybe a problem that maps well to your sociability) but networking shouldn't be a 4 letter word. If you're not enjoying it, you'll probably be well-rewarded to find a way to make it more enjoyable and that's pretty easy if you enjoy some element of your profession.
I'm reminded of The Last Psychiatrist's article, "This Is Why The American Dream Is Out Of Reach". It's also about a NYT article.
http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2010/08/this_is_why_the_ameri...
there's a deeper problem: people see personal connections and favors as key path to prosperity. Sure, they help. But the most lucrative opportunities aren't the chance to meet someone important, the most lucrative opportunities are those that involve solving a problem. How much time do parasites put into networking? I bet it's more time than they put into starting a new business or doing something.
What no one likes to admit is that the benefits of networking are highly dependent on your demographic. Young white dude with excellent credentials? Great! There are plenty of other white dudes who will hear you out. Older lesbian Latina from an unknown school? Not so much.
Therefore, if you're more like the Latina and less like the young White dude you should focus on technical ability more and networking less. That being said, everyone should maintain their relationships at a minimum, for no amount of technical excellence can defeat irrelevance.
People will definitely try to shush this blatant reality, but anyone who's not White will definitely tell you for themselves. For what its worth, it's less about being White and more about the fact that all of the incumbents in this particular industry are White. For basketball you could easily replace "young White" with "young Black"
Therefore, if you're more like the Latina and less like the young White dude you should focus on technical ability more and networking less. That being said, everyone should maintain their relationships at a minimum, for no amount of technical excellence can defeat irrelevance.
People will definitely try to shush this blatant reality, but anyone who's not White will definitely tell you for themselves. For what its worth, it's less about being White and more about the fact that all of the incumbents in this particular industry are White. For basketball you could easily replace "young White" with "young Black"
Being non-default makes someone more memorable. Over time people tend to remember only the good so if you're already memorable for some other reason you need to put less effort into networking.
If people already remember you for whatever reason (like being the old lesbian) then you have to work less hard advertising your value compared to someone else who's not so inherently memorable.
If people already remember you for whatever reason (like being the old lesbian) then you have to work less hard advertising your value compared to someone else who's not so inherently memorable.
This is something that I wished I had understood way earlier in my career. Basically that cause and effect are often inverted when people talk about the network effect. People who do some thing well, or are passionate about, often will accumulate a network of others who are interested in that same thing. And because they know a bunch of people who are also interested in that thing, when they hit a roadblock or a problem they have people they can reach out to for help or insights.
What is hard is discovery which is to say that the greatest programmer in the world who sits in his shack and writes perfect code that is beautiful and functional, is invisible.
There is a joke about the guy who complains "I make no money at all from stocks." and the friend says "What stocks do you own?" and the complainer responds "Oh I don't own any stocks, have no use for them, I just want money from them."
Attention and focus is like 'money from stocks' if you share what you're doing and your understanding with people you give them some advantage and perhaps some new understanding. That advantage comes back in the form of referrals or opportunities that you were not present to see when the person you shared with recognizes an opportunity as something you would be interested in. It also allows you to be "discovered" two or three hops down the road when someone says "Oh I know someone who is interested in that ..."