99% of networking is a waste of time
1 like502 views
The document discusses the effectiveness of networking, particularly focusing on the value of strategic business networking compared to traditional methods. It contrasts deep but narrow connections with wide but shallow ones, highlighting that weak ties can be more beneficial for creating opportunities. The author emphasizes the need for a tailored, strategic approach to networking that leverages both online and face-to-face interactions.
99% of networking is a waste of time
- 1. TECH NOTES Is 99 per cent of networking a waste of time? TECH NOTES TECH NOTES TECH NOTES By Darryl Howes, consultant, speaker and author specialising in strategic business networking RESOURCE You may be familiar with the title of this piece if you saw the similarly named article in Harvard Business Review (HBR) in January or one of the many media commentaries that followed in its wake. On his recent visit to the World Economic Forum that month, venture capitalist and networker extraordinaire Rich Stromback (known as “Mr Davos”) apparently told HBR that our laboured attempts to connect with our fellow man and woman at countless events are, mostly, all for nought. But what he said deserves closer analysis. In fact, while Stromback does recognise the value of high-profile Davos-type meetings, because they offer unrivalled opportunities for face-to-face contact with key people, his actual comment was that 99 per cent of Davos “provides information or experience you can get elsewhere, on your own timeframe and in a more comfortable manner”. And, when he was asked whether networking represents “real work” or not, Stromback replied: “The answer is to be extremely efficient and focus on what is truly essential.” The key point we can take from Stromback’s comments is that we need to adopt a new approach to our networking practices. Otherwise, we will continue spending valuable time on attending events and building networks that don’t meet our needs. Most basic networking can be categorised as either operational (establishing relationships required to get our jobs done) or personal (via our membership of groups or, for example, to provide a source of mentoring). But only strategic business networking can plug an individual into a source of collaborative power that will enable them to achieve both individual and organisational goals. Herminia Ibarra, professor of organisational behaviour at Insead business school, defines strategic networking as “the ability to marshal information, support and resources from one sector of a network to achieve results in another”. Our starting point, therefore, should be to decide exactly what we want from our networking. What resources, including time, do we have available to devote to it and what tangible outcomes are we seeking to achieve? We also need to consider whether our normal methods of connecting with people are serving us in the best way. Deep but narrow versus wide but shallow Typical networking strategies are polarised. At one end of the scale there are people who aim to make relatively few contacts but establish strong ties with them. They may look to restrict themselves to 150 contacts. This is known as Dunbar’s number after Robin Dunbar, the evolutionary psychologist whose research suggests that the structure of the human brain enables us to cope with somewhere between 100 and 230 stable relationships. His model is more social than commercial, including immediate family in the calculation, but the constituent names are likely to be people we know well and with whom we share a number of interests, whether social, professional or both. At the other end of the scale is where LinkedIn users with perhaps the 500-plus connections operate. Their policy when it comes to making contacts is clearly less selective. The question is: which approach is better? Years of research findings have confirmed that humans are motivated to form alliances. The strength of our affiliations depends partly on shared interests. The rarer a group’s value, skill, interest or experience, the more likely it is to facilitate a bond. Consider the example of two people who meet and learn that they share a passion for mountaineering. How much stronger will their bond be once they discover that they have both conquered Everest? This is what Adam Grant, professor of psychology at Wharton Business School, refers to as “uncommon commonality”. Such behaviour is supported by the well- established science of optimal distinctiveness. This theory based upon a principle of equilibrium, which states that we all want to fit in, but we want to stand out, too. We want to be alike, yet different. But the virtues of establishing strong ties are increasingly being called into question. Mark Granovetter, professor of sociology at Stanford University, proposed the concept of weak ties in 1973 and now his ideas are catching on in networking circles. He believes that, while strong ties breed local cohesion, they also lead to wider fragmentation. Granovetter claims that a more effective – perhaps more agile – networking strategy is to nurture weak ties within, across and beyond our normal close associations. The paradox is that weak ties, which you might think would lead to the alienation of communities, actually promote the integration of individuals. In short, he says, weak ties are “indispensable to individuals’ opportunities”. Super-fast connections Recent advances in web technology mean that we no longer need to do things the way we have always done them. Clearly, we cannot sell ourselves (for that is what we are doing) entirely online. But traditional face-to-face networking always involves a sort of honeymoon period. Here, both parties are engaging in small talk, getting to know each other and building the necessary preliminary trust before they can move matters on to the separate context of a more formal exchange of business needs – for example, that sought-after new client engagement. Furthermore, the investment in time required to seek out and attend events can prove prohibitive, especially so when some event organisers are understandably guarded about revealing who’s invited and there’s no guarantee that the one person we really wanted to meet will actually be there. An altogether different approach enables us to seek out the right kinds of contacts using LinkedIn and, where appropriate, deftly orchestrate mutually beneficial introductions through weak-tie first- or second-degree connections. Once the link is established, the online small talk can start through the steady, but non-intrusive, communication of information that may be useful to the contact. It’s definitely not spamming – the language should be social in nature (it is social media, after all). The alerts that LinkedIn sends users when a connection has a work anniversary provide a good reason to get in touch. The relationship can then be extended to email or other forms of social media, such as Twitter. From that point there’s the possibility of a personal meeting. Networking is a social activity, but that doesn’t mean it can’t be strategic. Ultimately, it’s for you to decide on a networking strategy that works according to the resources you have available, but it is time to consider using a blended range of methods in a more focused fashion. The final word must go to Stromback: “I need to be selective, yet authentic; focused, yet open to possibilities. Opportunities do not float like clouds in the sky. They are attached to people.”