Not really sure why this piece was abandoned. I think it was too large
and I didn't quite know what I was building up to, partially because
I was theorising about a problem that I haven't had a huge amount of
success with personally.
In particular because I liked the article, and I'm glad they published it even though it wasn't finished and had some (acknowledged) missing bits.
There are a lot of hollow articles out there which look polished, and there are a lot of un-polished articles (or even un-published) that are actually good, and I for one would like to see more of the latter.
It's good, and brave, to publish something that's a little unfinished or scattered or doesn't seem to have a Final Point being made. There can still be good nuggets inside, even though it invites criticism from the peanut gallery (not the fine folks on HN of course, but just in general).
I once was at a conference with my (former) boss where I got an inside peek at how a professional networker goes about it.
The conference sessions had ended, flowing into the evening program which pretty much was the bar. Just before heading into it, she shared a paper note with me.
It had a list of persons to talk to, for how long, the ice breaker, the excuse to exit the conversation and move to the next one, the importance of each target.
Not knowing anybody at the conference, I just sat at the end of the bar, had some light "conversation by proximity" but mostly watched her execute the networking plan. To the casual and unknowing observer, a cheerful social butterfly "happens" to bump into random characters but I knew more. The only visual clue was her eyes shooting across the room and her watch any time her current conversation partner looked away for a second. Scanning for prey.
I bet that as she returned home, she updated that massive network diagram in her garage to update the weights and other attributes.
Whilst you might just call this clever professional behavior, I found it chilling. Engineered, not genuine, "working" people to get what you need. I wonder if normalizing that bleeds into personal relationships.
I had an eye opening lesson on optimizing for the human factor from a friend in law school. I missed a class and asked to borrow his notes. His note taking style was very different from mine. I was focused on the details in the textbook.
He had all of that, but also included notes on the professor. For example, if there were multiple prevailing legal theories for an issue, he would put a note next to one and write "Prof. seems to prefer this." He was clocking the professor's take on the issues so that come test time he could craft answers that appealed to their predilections.
Law professors, like many lofty scholars, often think they know best and simply love students that stroke their egos. My friend, finished second in our class. Well ahead of me!
You don't play $boss like that?! I don't care for mgmt roles so the way I got what I wanted done was to walk $boss into thinking they came up with what I wanted to do. All you have to do is pay enough attention to the (often not work related) stated preferences and work some of them into the plan.
I want you to be asking about the strategy I have and incorporating ways to achieve that. I have that out in the open!
I usually want to know if you think my strategy won’t work and why, and how to make it better, but I might disagree with you. If we disagree, I still want you thinking about how to make my strategy successful even if I know you disagree.
I also want you to be telling me where you think we should be going and so I can make sure we both get credit for it. (Me because I did the extra work to make sure it isn’t blocked upstream and because I give it the space to succeed against other ideas, and you for having the idea and working through the hard parts.)
You sound like a Good Boss, or at least a pragmatic one! I don't think I've had any of those, or at least none committed to actually thinking differently. So you do what works: subterfuge and flattery :P
If she's coldly calculating, why did she share this potentially compromising info with you, and risk you accidentally burning her rep? (Did she trust you highly? Was there enough upside in showing off or mentoring? Did she have some liquid courage, so the calculations at that moment weren't as sharp as when she prepared the list?)
Do you think the mechanics of it might've been done out of humility, as a crutch for social anxiety/awkwardness? Or maybe she sees it as a performer, and people would appreciate her contributing to the overall experience of the event this way? It still wouldn't seem very honest to me, but more sympathetic than some cold-blooded person going for every edge of advantage in manipulating people.
It's alright, if they stay in one town long enough, or visit the same conferences and events long enough, everyone eventually learns who they are and figures out what they're after. The "good" ones are smart enough not to do that, they move around. The less good ones end up talking to the same "loves to hear the sound of their own voice" group eventually and sort of gets stuck in neutral. I guess if you've made it far enough in your desired career path by that point, it's fine.
When that less good kind has to go somewhere else for some reason, the results are extremely awkward.
I've been in those conversations before, and it kind of feels like it is what it is. I've learned to bury the lede in those situations so if the convo is not fitting into their speed dating schedule, then it's just not someone I want to be around. I've seen this a lot with Hollywood wanna be types at "mixers" where they have investors, writers, director types all at a bar hoping a pitch lands for further discussion. Same thing with industry parties in the ad world. Constant stories of one-ups that are just gross in that world. The swimming with sharks aspect is very creepy. They will absolutely key into information and either steal an idea or steal a client or both.
I had a sibling who did this, they wouldn't write anything down though. It absolutely bleeds into every relationship because that's what relationships are to them.
It's most likely that every single one of her "targets" understood that they were being targeted and everyone understood the smalltalk for what it was, and there's nothing wrong with that.
Surely they would understand it's an opportunity for networking, but I'd still say Tom would be a little surprised to read this:
"Tom: spend max 10 minutes on him as he's the vehicle to his boss Richard that is my gateway to a promotion. Ice breaker: he's a dweeb that studies fungi. Memorize one fungi name and say it grows in my garden and you're about to eat it, so that Tom can save my life by saying its toxic. Exit: isn't that Richard, your boss? I'm going to tell him how you saved my life lol."
Your original comment didn't say that the notes contained insults and planned lies (beyond the dishonest appearance of spontaneity). Is this sample an exaggeration? It certainly looks a lot worse this way.
It kind of makes sense that their strategy would involve cold, manipulative tactics, given the goal is to successfully trick each person they talk with into thinking they actually are interested in them as a person.
I find it disgusting and terrifying, but not all that surprising.
Something like this is advocated in _How to Win Friends and Influence People_ with the additional emphasis that the important part is that you should have something to offer so that you both win
This feels extremely weird to read as someone naiively approaching networking where I actually want to talk to people, not just their professional side.
On the other hand it might even be suboptimal in the long run because when you hire or partner with someone, you don't just hire their knowledge or expirience, you hire their personality, drive and creativity.
It came across as quite cold-hearted to me. But you don't have to take it that far. In particular the learning can be that you can somewhat engineer a conversation by preparing it well.
This can work, but it can also backfire. Sometimes I've ended a conversation that was going well because I wanted to meet/talk with other people, and then later regretted it. This is partly because the other conversations didn't pan out, and partly because sometimes the value of an extended conversation can be 20x the value of a bunch of brief interactions. I don't need another person to add on LinkedIn and then rarely actually talk to — sometimes I need a strong advocate or someone who is really into the project I'm working on.
Or perhaps I'm just not as good at the hyper-optimized-networking game as your boss.
I guess she knew what companies will attend and did her homework of the possible representatives (usually higher-ups from sales, marketing, CEO obviously, depends on the size of company as well). If the sector is small enough you can even do your homework on the key leaders as they will most likely be there, especially if it's THE event you should be if you're activating in that sector.
Networking is an enormous time sink, where 95% of your interactions are unfruitful, but you have to pretend to be enjoying them anyways. Maybe you find one connection that is worthwhile, and of that one connection, you have to carefully nurture it, without giving off the "this is the one important connection" vibes, because people can smell that a mile away. And sometimes that connection evaporates under mysterious causes. It's pointless. I truly can't justify wasting my time doing it when I could be producing things that anonymous people appreciate and rely on. I'd rather serve them than waste my time playing delicate social/power games with people in my proximity that I don't even relate to. At least when you serve anonymous people, they're generally honest about the quality of your work. You can't rely on anyone in these networks to be honest with you like an anonymous person can.
Networking isn't necessarily and generally shouldn't be about formal NETWORKING events and doing "delicate social/power games" as you put it. You just work with people, talk to them at conferences, join activity groups that you're interested in, etc. Every job I've had since grad school (admittedly not a lot) has come through people I've known professionally in some capacity.
This, in fact I suspect that these in person power networking events are (no offense to those who participate) a market for lemons, in the sense that only people in need of a job/career change/etc are going to them. People who already have a jobs and networks, at least among those I know, wouldn’t go to these events. Maybe they would if they were hiring, but probably they’d be more likely to go to a job fair than a more open ended networking event, since the hit rate would be higher.
Former bosses and coworkers, friends from college, etc are great additions to my network. I was never going out of my way “to network” with them, they’re connections I built from going out in the world and doing stuff. Random people on LinkedIn or who I met once and exchanged GitHubs or LinkedIn with, unless they were actively trying to hire people, have never been valuable IME, despite them being actively “networking.”
Not even networking events per se, but I've been at many local cheap/free conferences because I was interested in some of the topics, was speaking, etc. And, especially if the industry was in a bit of the doldrums at the time, you'd have a ton of people intent on exchanging LinkedIns or trading business cards and fairly obviously solely there to try to get a lead to a job somewhere.
As a counter point, only 1 of the 5 tech jobs in my career have come through a connection. It can be done, and in the long run I think it's better for personal and professional growth to get opportunities that way. Not to mention that every time you get an opportunity through a connection, you're potentially screwing over someone else more qualified, without a connection.
I think the key point here is that there is "networking" as in making friends with people you spend meaningful time with vs "Networking" in the sense of going to parties or meetups in hopes of shaking hands with and BSing with someone for 5 minutes and linking in with them- and this seems to be the type that most push.
Most of the important networking happens naturally and is never a forced thing. I worked with a group about 20 years ago now, doing some stuff that was groundbreaking and we all still keep in touch and will absolutely vouch for one another and get each other jobs if we need to, but not once did I ever think about my time with them as networking. Same with some other jobs as well. But that DBA guy on another team that I was constantly having to pull teeth with to get any work out of that sent me a linkedin request? Its probably better for him that I forget his name and give him a second chance then remember how mediocre I felt he was.
I have been to conferences, and spoken at my share of them, and there are always "Networking" events around these, and even when I was actively hiring and looking around the room- with something to offer!- none of these resulted in any meaningful or long lasting relationships.
Yes, having a network is important. But the way to build it is to earn the trust, respect, and friendship of those around you. I mean I guess you can push this along a bit by going to happy hour and trying to bond a bit, but networking to me is 95% an organic thing and not something you should force, especially in tech.
I guess a caveat to that is that some people have to- and should- work to be generally likable. I have known some very smart people I would really prefer to never have to work with again.
>I guess a caveat to that is that some people have to- and should- work to be generally likable. I have known some very smart people I would really prefer to never have to work with again.
I think you hit on something here. When someone is viewed as generally unlikable, excluding them is contagious. No matter how hard they work at it, it will always be socially easy and acceptable by the in-group to exclude them. There is relatively no pressure on the in-group to work at being more accepting towards "unlikable" people, like there is for those people to "work to be likable." People are extremely unforgiving in social interactions.
"you're potentially taking X outta more-qualified Y's hands"
Why is this limitation mindset present in some people and not others? I understand quite fully that there is a difference in mindset between growth/limitation but... you're not "Taking a job" if they're more qualified and better-suited, the employer can hire them instead of you, but they didn't. It's not a zero sum world.
I've been part of different hiring processes long enough to see just how many people get hired because they know somebody on the team, when there were other candidates who were as qualified or more qualified. When we can hire 1 person, my experience is that it is 1000% biased towards knowing somebody. Sure, if there is an undefined number of open reqs, you can argue that there is still space for the more qualified, unconnected applicants. But when you're dealing with a finite number of open reqs, there's actually not, and it is a zero sum game.
Well, pretty much most people know that interviews aren't a great way to assess signal--certainly at the margins. So as long as someone seems qualified, a team member who has actually worked with them in some capacity who vouches for them tilts the scales quite a bit.
Yep, and if you've ever worked with someone who is a "dud" but leveraged their connections to get the position, you'll know how frustrating it is to realize you're competing with this outsized advantage.
"Knows someone" means that the someone they know liked them enough to recommend them. Hiring an unknown person with more skills is taking a gamble on personality?
How are you defining this? You made cold outreach to the companies for job postings you saw adverts for?
I ask because if recruiters were involved they are often power networkers that will unashamedly ask the people you know, "who do you know that would be good for this job."
My cofounder got two jobs because after they rejected me I told the agent they should hire him instead and they did.
"Networking" has been indispensable in every aspect of my career. I hate the term "networking", though, because it implies it's some kind of special activity. It's not. It just means maintaining professional relationships. You "network" every day when you're working with your teammates, for instance.
Networking events are, in my experience, a pointless waste of time.
OP started out talking about plumbers; if you want to meet plumbers (or their friends) at networking events, you're going to have to start attending builder's conferences.
And even if you do that, the people you're likely to meet will be businessmen, not tradesmen. Tradesmen work, and when they're not working, they're either getting training or they're on holiday. They don't do "events".
I used to feel this way but now I am in a position where I professionally depend on my "network," and I got very good at it by completely changing the way I think about it.
I mostly don't talk to people when I don't gel with them personally. When I'm at something like a conference, I talk to people whose work I have legitimate questions about, and ask them earnestly wanting to learn from them. I'm a curious person and I like talking about things I've learned, so this is the best way for me to find people I can really get along with.
I put more thought and effort into my relationships with people that I can relate to and enjoy talking to. I also put thought and effort into thinking about ways I can help them or make their lives better.
I also put effort into asking people I trust for advice or help on things I care about. I share my own knowledge and thoughts freely.
Since I hate small-talk and dislike introducing myself to random people, I lean on the people I know who are "connectors," people who enjoy making introductions and being at the center of social circles. I go out of my way to thank them for good introductions.
I also just once every few months go through my list of contacts on chat apps and see who I haven't spoken to in a long time and ask them how they're doing.
All of that seems to be enough to maintain a healthy professional network, and none of it feels bad or cheap, and in fact it mostly makes me feel happy and good.
>I truly can't justify wasting my time doing it when I could be producing things that anonymous people appreciate and rely on.
On the other hand, anonymity just means people take and take from you, and there is less of a human mechanism to sympathize with (on both sides of the equation). It's oh so common to see a creator start to despise their audience because the more savory people are just that damaging to their mentality.
I think it really depends on what your goal is. I think "true networking" feels no different from making a close friend, finding someone you share passions, goals, and missions with. Someone you can call to grab lunch with out of the blue for no special occasion without feeling awkward. But in professional standpoints, you don't need a lifelong buddy if your goal is simply to get a new job or a promotion. I guess being honest with that can help cut that tension.
Unrelated note, but I feel like the concept of "networking", in general, is something that introverts have come up with to explain/emulate something that extroverts do naturally, and since the behaviors of networking aren't a natural priority for introverts, the efforts are doomed to fail. What I mean by this is: introverts will observe extroverts and think, "hmm, what are they doing that makes them successful?" and see that the extroverts are getting opportunities and advice and recommendations through their circle of acquaintances, and think "wow, if I do that I'll be successful", and thus try to optimize directly for the result (i.e. meeting important people and maintaining "relationships" with them) instead of the things that lead to the result (i.e. enjoying meeting and hanging out with random people).
From my informal observations in grad school, a lot of introverts' attempts to "network" end up being disasters where they gather people's contact information, make an odd attempt at "maintaining" a connection with people out of thin air, and the relationship eventually fades away. My grad school actually tried "teaching" networking to us, and I haven't met anyone for whom this approach worked, because I don't think it's possible to teach a personality trait. On the other hand, I've observed that extroverts will make a lot of friends and naturally engage in reciprocal relationships even with acquaintances and don't really put what feels like "effort" into nurturing those relationships.
This difference in priorities reflects in what "networking" looks like for these groups of people:
Introvert - go to a "networking event" once in a blue moon, smile through the awkwardness, hope to connect with someone who can directly help you, collect some LinkedIns, look for the important people, send a DM or two on LinkedIn, ghosted or never talk to those people again
Extrovert - go to some event, grab drinks, talk with a bunch of random people, hit it off with some people regardless of how important they are and invite them to things (e.g. going out, or for some kind of hobby) or get invited to things, hang out with new friend/acquaintance later as previously agreed upon and maybe even bring them into your own social circle, after making many such friend/acquaintances you are now at most 2 degrees removed from someone important / who can directly help you
This is all to say that if networking doesn't come "naturally", it doesn't make sense to intentionally engage in the behaviors of it, as this commits the error of optimizing for the wrong things (like getting people's contact info and hoping for a positive outcome), instead of doing what comes naturally to extroverts (i.e. just making friends without a particular aim where the friend-making is itself the positive outcome). Unfortunately, this means accepting the downside of having lower access to opportunities than extroverted peers, or pursuing different types of opportunities altogether.
>On the other hand, I've observed that extroverts will make a lot of friends and naturally engage in reciprocal relationships even with acquaintances and don't really put what feels like "effort" into nurturing those relationships.
To give a practical example, early in my career I had a hard time talking up people. Senior folks seemed intimidating, and junior colleagues seemed to have it easier than I did. But I found it was easier to talk to new hires as they arrived, because they didn't know a lot of people themselves. I was the more "established" person in their eyes, so I became their go-to guy for questions and advice. I then built up good connections with an increasing number of new hires, which made me the go-to guy for senior folks looking to connect with juniors. Before I knew it, I had all those reciprocal relationships and a network in which I had a strong reputation. No social gamesmanship at all.
>This is all to say that if networking doesn't come "naturally", it doesn't make sense to intentionally engage in the behaviors of it, as this commits the error of optimizing for the wrong things instead of doing what comes naturally to extroverts
I hate to say it but you may have a point here. I read the example in the article and what goes on in my head is "Do I REALLY want to go to parties just to meet friends who may or may not know a good plumber in the area?" Or worse, "Romantically involve myself in someone to get access to their friend group so maybe one of them knows a good plumber?"
And I guess that's the point. This sounds like work and unnecessary effort to me, wheras it's just a "natural" side effect of something an extrovert would typically enjoy. I've always been the shopper that comes in with a list and doesn't waiver unless I genuinely forgot to list something I intended to. I guess that mentality isn't the best in networking unless I myself am valuable.
You could try being the kind of person people want favor/approval from by providing some kind of service instead? Organizing some sort of event could be good if you can find a good fit for your interests - you'll be doing a thing that you want or working to accomplish something important to you and it'll naturally provide opportunities for beneficial social interactions.
Or something else - I think you can avoid the antiutility of transparently socializing as a means to an ends by identifying a situation where your purpose is aligned with your intention, and the socialization is a bonus.
>identifying a situation where your purpose is aligned with your intention, and the socialization is a bonus.
you know, I thought conventions would be the answer to this for me back in college. But the half dozen or so I went to seemed to have had the same results: cool for some slightly more intimate small talk, but not necessarily for making friends. People already come with friends and have established groups, so they aren't necessarily there for that either (Or you know, there are professional conferences and we end up back at this topic: have a bunch of business cards we maybe follow up on with once).
But yeah, I have another plan once the dust settles on my current situation: There's a few OS repos out there that would knock out 3 birds with one stone if I could start contributing, so I'll see how "internet networking" goes.
>You could try being the kind of person people want favor/approval from by providing some kind of service instead?
Possible, but I don't have any services that come to mind. Just your typical geek into tech, games, and anime.
Most of my "network" is like, I had a job, we went to the pub after work, we got chatting, now we are friends.
It feels weird to even call it a network, that's like LinkedIn speak. People I know through work, university, the gym, etc, all exist on the same level in my mind.
I don't really agree. the hard part of networking is being worth talking to for the other person. people will happily overlook a little awkwardness if they think you might be able to help them in the future. you don't have to put in a lot of work to "maintain" the relationship either. just do your best to help them if they ever reach out, and they'll probably be willing to do the same for you.
for me, "networking" is mostly just adding coworkers on LinkedIn. it seemed pointless at first, but a few years later I have first degree connections at most desirable tech companies who would be happy to give me a referral. I find it's usually pretty easy to get a referral even from a second degree connection.
I think you are describing a kind of person who is so good at networking that their network is the main thing of value that they have to offer. this is very hard to achieve as an introverted/shy person, but imo it's not necessary when you have other valuable skills.
My experience reflects this strongly! Ironically I performed what you describe as extroverted networking relentlessly by nature with great success for years, went to engineering school as an adult and dutifully attempted to perform 'networking' as it was recommended to me and as a result had almost that exact 'introvert networking' experience.
Like, your description caused me to recoil in horror from remembered embarrassment.
Because of that I think the 'introvert networking' experience is simply following the procedure as described.
I agree with the nature of your comment, but I would like to make a small tweak to it: instead of presenting people as "naturally" being introverted or extroverted, I would like to posit that the extroverts you refer to are just more experienced in these kinds of social interactions.
I'm kind of weird because a lot of people see me as being extroverted because I tend to act that way when I'm comfortable with a person. But I'm also the type to magnet to the sole person I know at a party and only occasionally talk to their friends if they speak to me. At the last big social event I went to I probably spent as much time talking to people as I did walking around aimlessly trying to appear busy because I was too afraid to talk to someone new. I don't drink but I can understand why "liquid courage" is so common at socials.
The thing is that we tend to assume if we see a so-called extrovert that they must also not face our same inhibitions. But I have not observed this to be the case. Even people so extroverted they still are in touch with strangers they met abroad on a train (in the time before the internet, no less) share in my feelings of social awkwardness. Conversely, I know people who are much more meek and mild than I who completely excel in a social setting. In both cases, they said the edge they had over me was just experience.
If you think yourself an introvert, think actually about how many times you've tried to talk to people at socials. If you're like me at the last social I went to, then you're getting so much less practice than the guy having twenty awkward conversations.
At least in my case, I am least practiced when it comes to introducing myself to a group of strangers. But I am convinced there is a right combination of words and actions that you have to get a feel for. I needed to ask someone I didn't know a question and a friend of mine went with me; he exchanged a few words that I don't even remember and suddenly I was enough into the conversation that I could get my question out without feeling completely red-faced.
I don't know if you practice presenting slideshows like I do, but when I first practice, I'll do a bunch of 30-second false starts when I present a new slide. I'll start to say something and it will come out wrong or I'll work my way into a corner and get stuck, then I'll restart. Eventually I figure out the right formula for introducing the slide, and the rest usually follows from there.
How you practice socializing is still an open question to me. I know I make it sound easy, but I still have trouble overcoming my fears. Even if I intuitively know the right moves, I lack the confidence to make them. Perhaps my biggest issue is that for a long time I did not approach being social as a learned skill, so I didn't put myself out there. I do believe that with experience most anyone can be the life of the party.
Oof, this ended up being a bunch of words. Whoops.
Edit: one additional thought fragment. Part of what drives my social anxiety is a desire to be accepted by others. For presenting, perhaps this is a strength: I will meticulously choose my words assuming my audience is adversarial and I need to win over their attention and adoration. For socializing, I think it is often more a weakness. Caring so much about presenting myself well ironically causes me to never want to put myself out there because, well, I know I'll be awkward. I still have yet to convince myself emotionally (though I know it logically) that most people I meet will have forgotten me by the end of the event - or they will at least have forgotten the several gaffes I made that keep me up at night.
I chanced upon this article and found it thought provoking. I'm essentially starting from zero, as I moved from the big city into a rural mountain area 2 years ago by myself and only know a handful of people. So I've been wondering what was a good way to bootstrap a social network for someone that's just awkward around strangers. I also don't have family in this country.
Things I've tried.
Joining local sports groups, am told they're full because of too many new members lately.
Working out at the local gym, this was actually how I met my first friend. I
probably should go more often but I wanted to try out another gym.
Going to local events, flea markets, etc. I see people I know and greet them, but they're usually already with other people and it's awkward interrupting them. I generally stick around and chat for a few minutes, then I just leave because it's just weird forcing myself into a group.
Work out of a co-working space once a week. Took a bit of time to find the right venue. Most of the places I've been to, people stick to themselves. Finally found one where there's some kind of community.
As an off shoot of the above, I'm looking for a gym near the co-working area so I have less excuses not to go.
> am told they're full because of too many new members lately.
This is good. This is a group that works well.They likely can give advice on where to ask, and whom to avoid. "Aww, I would've loved to play with you. Sorry that didn't work out - do you have recommendations where I could look?" is a good request.
> I generally stick around and chat for a few minutes, then I just leave because it's just weird forcing myself into a group.
The chance that you are the only singleton is small - find the other ones, talk to them. But also, talk to people about their interest. E.g. on the flea market "Hey, that's such a gorgeous set of drawers you're selling, really admire it, bummer I can't make space" gives them an opportunity to tell you a story. (Most people like telling stories about themselves. Give them the space to tell you that story.
Yes, both of these are freaking scary. (Well, they are to me, at least). But they are a good way to form at least a tenuous connection. And next time you see them, you have somebody you know. Especially in rural areas, folks often have deep networks and are roping you in once they have ascertained you are "safe" for group consumption.
(Downside: Some of these deep networks in rural areas are super-cliquish. I've lived in a place that talked about people as "the new folks" when they moved there 20 years ago. You can become surface friends, but deep friendship in those places takes forever. Find the other "new folks")
I think you might just not be allowing time for the seed to sprout.
You should be proud of doing some of the hardest tasks already, so focus more on planting the seed and letting it grow by regularly showing up and watering it. So much of networking is pure chance. Showing up to the same coffee shop, remembering that grocery clerk, going to the same gym every Tuesday, helping out with the same conference group. That repeated action creates a natural sense of trust between people so it becomes much easier to form connections.
I've met people through volunteering, but I wonder would we have become friends if I didn't just keep showing up? Maybe the day we met they could have skipped volunteering because they had something else planned in their usual volunteer time slot, but since they chose to volunteer earlier in the day our schedules finally aligned. Those sort of thoughts, but it's happening all the time! The universe is strange like that. Fate I guess.
It's not easy, especially as an adult, but really you just have to give yourself time to grow in whatever space you want to be in and let the universe do the rest.
I've been dealing with a similar thing, but for me part of the problem is the difficulty of even taking the first step. It seems like you've taken many first steps!
I think there's an issue which you're avoiding that the article doesn't mention. In our world, you can send a text message to a friend halfway across the world and receive a reply instantly. I've found that it can be hard to forge new relationships when you can simply go online and find the comforting and enduring ones you've cultivated for years or even decades. It's a lot harder to force myself to make introductions at a party when I can whip out my phone and chat with someone I've known for ten years.
It feels weird to say that someone who seems to be antisocial may actually be engaged in more simultaneous conversations - just none of them happening at that present location. But I think also that there are many (important) reasons to have relations physically close to you.
Of the tips in this article, I think this one is simultaneously the most well-known and the most underrated:
> Getting a job gets you a professional network, which you can try to turn into a friend network.
Getting a job isn't enough to start building a network. You have to do well at that job, be a good person to work with, and step out of your comfort zone to meet new people.
I've seen a growing number of people learn the hard way that your behavior in the final months of a job leaves a lasting impression. One of the most motivated engineer ladder-climbers I know was very good at interviewing and getting new jobs, but he developed a habit of burning bridges on the way out: After about a year at the company he'd gradually diminish his work output and spend 80% of his day searching for new jobs, interviewing, and negotiating bigger raises at his next job hob. This worked for a while, but after 4 or 5 rounds he had built a reputation for slacking off for a few months and then leaving companies. Word traveled, and he discovered that new jobs would only hire him with longer vesting schedules and sign-on bonuses that had to be paid back if he left before 2-3 years. Eventually nobody well-connected wanted to hire him because they had heard so many stories about him underperforming and bailing at the 1-year mark, despite interviewing well and performing great in the first few months. He finally moved out of state to start over in a new network.
What I'm saying is: The strongest networking you do might not feel like networking. It's years of accumulated reputation. Word travels and people check references. Reference checking felt like it was paused for a few years when everyone was hiring as fast as possible, but now I'm getting reference check calls/texts/DMs more than ever before.
I've had mixed results with networking-focused activities. I've met some good people at networking events, but you have to actively filter out the loud professional networkers and seek out the other people like yourself. The best contacts are not always the loudest, most outgoing, most extroverted people at these events. In fact, some of those people are sharks who are only interested in networking as far as they can use you for leverage, clout, or your connections. Tread lightly.
> Word traveled, and he discovered that new jobs would only hire him with longer vesting schedules and sign-on bonuses that had to be paid back if he left before 2-3 years.
I've occasionally heard anecdotes like this but I have a hard time imagining how this kind of thing ever happens outside of very small population centers with less than ten tech employers. Unless he's some kind of executive where huge amounts of resources are devoted specifically to vetting and networking is the interview process, what incentive is there for people in charge of hiring to share such granular info with one another? Is everyone in charge of hiring at major tech companies just in a big whatsapp group exchanging dirt on employees they didn't like?
There is a lot of backchannel reference checks. If you're about to make an offer to someone and you're in HR, there's a really good chance that you have a friend in HR at their previous company. Or if you're a hiring manager there is a good chance you have a friend who is a manager. You send them a quick note for a backchannel reference check.
Or HR/hiring managers spend a few minutes on LinkedIn looking for employees who have 1st or 2nd order connections to the candidate. If someone has been working in an industry for 5-10 years it's not hard to find someone who knows someone who worked with them.
How, in FANG alone there are THOUSANDS of HR members that rotate in and out like a revolving door. They barely know eachother let alone any of the workers save a few executives they worked for.
You took the statement too literally. Of course there is not a single whatsapp group, but hundreds of them. People working in HR have lots of friends who also work in HR, meet HR friends of their HR friends, they talk with each other, and so on.
People change companies every few years. If a company has 100 engineers and half of them get new jobs after 3 years, you could now have people with 2nd-order connections at 20-50 different companies.
Repeat for several cycles and it becomes very easy to find someone who knows someone who worked with a candidate. LinkedIn makes this extremely easy.
>You have to do well at that job, be a good person to work with, and step out of your comfort zone to meet new people.
I argue you need to do these things just to maintain a job. Especially once you're no longer a junior.
>I've had mixed results with networking-focused activities. I've met some good people at networking events, but you have to actively filter out the loud professional networkers and seek out the other people like yourself. The best contacts are not always the loudest, most outgoing, most extroverted people at these events.
like most of life, unfortunately. meeting people you mesh with in general is hard.
This is true: A job doesn't necessarily create a professional network OR a friend network. The vast majority of people I worked with at my previous job were assholes and generally awful and boring people. The cool and successful people already left. Another issue is ambitious coworkers may keep others at a distance to prioritize their economic interests ahead of personal ones.
There are pockets of good people everywhere but there's no magic recipe to find 100% concentration of them. One just has to put out good energy and be open.
> Eventually nobody well-connected wanted to hire him because they had heard so many stories about him underperforming and bailing at the 1-year mark, despite interviewing well and performing great in the first few months
Interesting, but the author is still sounding it out. Highly recommend Stanford prof Jeffery Pfeffer's "Power: Why some people have it...." book. The essential idea is that each field has a weighted triad of Performance, Credentials, and Relationships. Elite networks typically index on the latter two, and ascendant networks index on the first and last.
I have spent a great deal of time in prestigious places, and I'm always sympathetic to the disappointment of people who have worked so hard to finally arrive there, only to be seated with me at the end of it after all their trouble. It's absurd.
I'd say, why network when you can conquer and prevail? Being climby just means being irritating to progressively more powerful people. There is always a cluster of people around the powerful who try to be gatekeepers and pretenders. Their esteem has no value outside mediocre aspirations. Sure, there are careers to be made as mendicants, but that's what banking and politics are for. Tech is for improving the lives of others and solving problems as an honest service. Unless you are finding customers to make something they want, networking is inferior with a weak upside, imo.
After being laid off from FANG, I feel this essay painfully. One things I've learned is that people in FANG companies are a VERY SPECIAL breed and tend to only have connections in other FANG companies and they are next to useless in the real world. So when things are going well FANG network helps, but when they are going badly like now -- their value from a job perspective is nearly useless.
They have hyper narrow network and experience that applies almost entirely to FANG culture, scale and goals. They have very very few real money connections, like VCs etc, and really haven't built much reputation there since they have been with FANG their entire career.
They also have a certain enui that really is entirely about "I can never leave FANG even thought I don't like it, because I don't believe I can function anywhere else."
It's a bizarre situation. But fortunately I came across a 'hyper node' (people who just happen to have hundreds of high quality connections) and she helped us get to funding conversations and even deep inside some competitors to learn whats going on. So lesson is of me, you might not need the network, but it do need to know the person that does!
Yes. After leaving Google it took me a number of months to give my head a shake and start restoring old connections and networking habits from before I got stuck there. Google at least is a bit of an echo chamber, and company policies around external open source contribution, etc. plus the arrogant internal engineering culture tends to de-emphasize networks and approaches from the outside. I imagine this is common across the SV BigCorps.
I love the writing style in this piece. Feels a lot like some kind of transcript from a talk.
Anyway, in my household it's my SO who handles the networking - she's brilliant at this and spent the last few years creating her network from scratch after we moved to this city. I get to tag along as the "neighborhood IT guy".
Meanwhile, after over a decade in this industry and scooping up contacts from each organization I've been to, as I recently discovered whilst trying to lubricate the relationship between a friend of mine and a prospective employer, I can achieve precisely dick with the network that I have.
One thing that naturally works to her advantage is giving off an aura of the least threatening person in the world. People just open up to her. Unfortunately this is not replicable.
This is key I think. I moved abroad for 5-ish months and I only started to have people I could call on to do something (sometimes) towards the very end.
Depends on what you want. Do you really need a good plumber? The plumber you need to fix a leaky faucet is completely different from the plumber you need for an upgrade of hot-water delivery in a high-rise building that's putting in an upper floor restaurant. Most plumbers can do the former. Few can do the latter well.
If you can frame that question and ask it to someone in an adjacent business, such as a landlord, you might get a good answer.
That's a useful strategy. If you need a good plumber, ask someone who buys a lot of plumbing services.
This is a nice angle on bootstrapping Social Capital [1]. There's been much ink spilt on the "decline of social capital" in the developed world in the last few decades [e.g. 2].
One interesting implication of all this is that we seem increasingly complacent with depending on private companies and social welfare to fill in the gaps that were previously filled by our "village", so to speak.
In a densely-connected network with lots of social capital, many companies/programs don't make much sense. The company might be able to provide the service (food prep/delivery, laundry, transportation, home maintenance, health care services) more "efficiently" and at less "cost", but they carry an opportunity cost of failing to accrue of social capital.
From that lens, you can view these companies as a kind of tax on social capital. They accrue wealth at the expense of our networks. And we rejoice, because we save a marginal 10 cents on the dollar, which we reinvest in equity of the same companies that tax our social capital.
I don't intend to apply any morals or draw any conclusions, it's just a thought-provoking way of looking at startups, these days, this theme of "profiting from the eroding fabric of american society".
A strategy I've found most recently is to take something you're good at and make a spectacle of yourself. The ones that find you are the networkers. Presumably they can then introduce you to people who are skilled in ways that you aren't (i.e. domains you're not capable of making a spectacle in).
Absolutely. The classic social success for an introvert is to be adopted by a well-meaning extrovert.
This is a mutually beneficial relationship because introverts are often just as interesting and valuable friends as extroverts are, but have less time competition from other friends. So the introvert gets someone who will help maintain their network, and the extrovert gets a good friend with relatively greater time availability.
Actually this is very key. Knowing someone who wants to be, or otherwise excels at being, the center of a huge network, is a great resource. The trust barrier is lowered during new introductions to their connections by virtue of the person introducing you, so making genuine connections is a lot easier. Otherwise it feels like that weird kind of forced interaction that usually ends with standing there in silence for a while.
I've heard this advice summed up as "make yourself a beacon".
i.e. just start talking in a public square. If you talk long enough, you'll find people who want to talk about the same thing, and they'll introduce you to their friends.
IME it works pretty well, and with the internet, it's never been easier.
> Many networks are Not For People Like You - you're the wrong race, class, or gender. You didn't go to the right schools. Your family's ancestors didn't subjugate the right people three generations back along with the other members of the network. Or maybe you're just too weird and the people in the network don't want to put up with that. Some networks are just exclusive and nothing you can do will gain you access to them.
As much ink as we spill on the loneliness epidemic, there's something to be said about an atomized society where surviving, and in a more ideal world thriving, does not depend on the quality the network the birth lottery gave you, or the one you are confined you in by centuries of prejudice.
I'll speak for myself; I've had really bad experiences with in-groups of all kinds - especially kinship groups - that make me suspicious of networks. I'm glad that my ability to feed myself isn't tied to any specific in-group/network. Instead, it relies on a global capitalist network that can ship bananas from Central America and sell them to me for $0.79 a pound. All of this labor done by people who I will never meet, but rely on completely for my survival.
If it weren't for the fact that this vast global network didn't rest on rapine exploitation, I'd say we were on to something. But alas, this monument to greed that enables my misanthropy is not humane. So perhaps to create a more humane world, I should develop the ability to be vulnerable with other people.
The ability to be vulnerable with other people is also the ability to weather any possible damage incurred, so I would consider it a beneficial ability to develop for your own sake.
Back when I needed to hire a specialized lawyer several years ago, the way I solved that was interviewing all the local lawyers in that area I could find. One of the questions was always who they'd hire for this case if they couldn't hire themselves. You build a picture that way.
Doesn't work in all cases of course. Plumbers would probably think that's weird.
I have a really good electrician on my contacts list. He's an individual, not a gang; he's really good, and takes all the annual training and then some; and his client list includes some very classy organisations.
But he can't recommend a builder to me.
Nor a plumber; but I have an OK plumber. It's a firm, not an individual, and I've had people rock up that were rather arrogant. But nobody incompetent has turned up. Oh, and they're pricey.
But they can't recommend a builder to me either.
People have told me to use a service such as TrustaTrader. But I don't trust them; they take payment for listing.
The 0->1 problem is the irreducible problem. Network effects amplify like a "differential equation" or virtuous circle: proportional to the "amount" (quality) of people already present.
One modern problem is that there are too many what I call "overpaid useless people": office workers with one and only one ability who are complacent and fail to enrich themselves in hobbies or professional development, and generally lack curiosity and don't read books. They also tend to be consumers not creators, and avoid volunteering for anything beyond themselves by feigning or actual incapability.
Then there are the people who play video games, do drugs, immaturity, lack life experience, or generally seek to escape their lives rather than use their time constructively. People with their priorities out of order. This is part of the general bucket of liability if they need and take more than they offer.
A third problem is most people these days keep others at a distance and avoid making friends for whatever reason: they either don't know how to start, maintain, or they avoid relationships with others. It's also a waste to be pro-social if the other party refuses to carry their side of the relationship: again, consumer mentality waiting around for others to put in the work for them.
I think networking is way overrated since there's Linkedin. Unless you need very specific contacts or something, recruiters will reach out and about 10% will have great roles. Sure, a direct connection might get you an opportunity faster, but for people like me who aren't naturally inclined to do so, the work of nurturing a network probably offsets the potential missed opportunities.
Anyone familiar with any? I know he said not to solicit in groups but I’m into entrepreneurship tech would love to know any groups especially bootstrapping ( and all the marketing sales associated).
I once had a drain blockage that my guy kept messing with and couldn't get out. He called a friend with a bigger jetter. When that didn't break it out, and after about 3 days of futzing around with their ideas, they called this other guy. He was the good plumber.
He showed up, and without getting his hands dirty, diagnosed the problem, collected a fee, and left in about an hour. (Some crew had laid fiber cable, drilled through the drain pipe, and created a blockage. The good plumber called the company who did it, who got their own crew to fix it.)
So I guess the moral of my story is yeah, ask a plumber for a good plumber.
There are a lot of hollow articles out there which look polished, and there are a lot of un-polished articles (or even un-published) that are actually good, and I for one would like to see more of the latter.
It's good, and brave, to publish something that's a little unfinished or scattered or doesn't seem to have a Final Point being made. There can still be good nuggets inside, even though it invites criticism from the peanut gallery (not the fine folks on HN of course, but just in general).