“Let’s End Networking, Please.” – Seconded

Source: Allen Gannett for The Next Web

Imagine a world without networking.

A world where someone introducing himself at a conference isn’t trying to invade your Rolodex.

A world where people try to form relationships with you, not just because you can help them find a “rockstar CTO,” but because they want to be your friend or share and build ideas with you.

A world where endless “networking events” are replaced with mixers and mingling, where panels on “how to network” are erased from conference programs, where books such as Networking Like a Pro have been burned and relegated to the ash heap of history.

The networking needs to end

Sometime in the last five years, people decided to take career advice far too seriously and center their professional lives around this oddfangled concept of “networking.”

The technology world is particularly guilty. With entrepreneurship and (especially) fundraising being such connection-driven activities, there are countless events designed to give techies networking opportunities. Go to one of these events and witness attendees accosting others they barely know: “Can you intro me to Dave McClure?” “I hear you brunch with Fred Wilson?”

Stating your desire to network with someone is a bald assertion that you seek a transactional relationship. You want to leverage their business and personal contacts to your advantage. It’s explicitly manipulative.

There shouldn’t be barriers between professional and personal relationships

Some of this stems from our general awkwardness around professional relationships. We tend to keep the people who we meet through work in a bucket we call “professional relationships.” We create a false barrier that prevents connecting with them personally, other than idle banter at the start of a conference call.

In fact, the people you meet through work are perhaps your best pool of potential friends. You have a shared interest with them, spending a substantial part of your day working on similar problems. Placing them off limits as friends because they are “work contacts” is a false and unnecessary restriction.

The utilitarian would ask, “What’s wrong with doing business or networking where there is a mutual benefit?” However, business deals done with bad people never end well. If someone is not good enough to be friends with, then why do business with them? Ultimately, humans are responsible for implementing business contracts and partnerships. If you can’t trust the person on the other end, then why do it?

We Need to Start Treating People as People

Being technologists often means that we spend a lot of time interacting with systems: Engineering is a system, digital marketing is a system, venture capital is a system. Systems abound. Yet we need to stop trying to manipulate human interaction as if it was just another system. Our connections with people, even in our work life, should be based on relationships of genuine humanity, not shallow tit-for-tat interactions.

Maybe it was just that we misheard the career advice. Somewhere along the line we thought that building relationships with other people meant simply getting their email address and guilting them into responding. But we’re missing the point. These pseudo-relationships aren’t fulfilling. They end the day you stop providing material value to the other party.

The line between personal and professional relationships should be blurry. We should do business with good people, and we should be friends with good people. Creating mental dividers is neither necessary nor desirable.

Instead, we should focus on people above business. Think about that first time you met your significant other’s family. You had a lot in common (i.e., your shared appreciation of their son or daughter), but at the same time knew very little about who they were as people. You don’t enter these relationships seeking to leverage them, but rather with the understanding that these people may be future family. You seek to understand them as people, and embrace them as people—not just “connections.”

Try viewing other people in tech the way you view your potential in-laws. You share a love with other techies, but it’s of technology and innovation. What’s wrong with valuing your other techies as people and getting to know them as people, rather than viewing each as just another node in the system?

Let’s not only imagine a world without networking, let’s live it. Let’s embrace friendships within technology, not just LinkedIn connections and AngelList introductions. Let’s stop reading those HackerNews pieces on “Hacking the Social Graph.”

Let’s ask people to hang out on weekends, not just grab coffee to discuss work.

Let’s go on a mountain hike, not just smile across the room at another techie happy hour.

Let’s never have to get invited to a “networking event” again.

Let’s end networking.

CREATISTAAlfie PhotographyYuri Arcurs via shutterstock

I agree, to an extent.

We need events to take ourselves away from the keyboard, to meet the faces behind those RFPs and Invoices bubble wrapped in passive-aggressive emails.

What needs to happen is a fresh look at Networking 2.0

That was the title of my post-graduate dissertation, examining the relationships built between entrepreneurs in the Web2.0 industry and providing an alternative view of how start-ups interact with large enterprises (a published study titled “Dancing with Gorillas” had made strategic ties seem clumsy and impossible).

A great deal has changed since I sweated over my own War and Peace. Namely I would expect a new study to include a look at start-up incubators like Y Combinator.

My hunch is relationships forged in an incubator between companies will be considerably stronger than otherwise. I sincerely hope that working at an incubator is akin to joining a close-knit community.

If each day slipped by with incubator members sat in total silence – as though stood awkwardly in an elevator with total strangers – that would surely negate any advertised benefit to owning desk space there.

The in-laws analogy is tight. Give everyone you meet the best possible impression of yourself, and put their needs first in a genuine way.

Discussion

Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people.
– Eleanor Roosevelt

Could we turn this into a ladder that we climb to reach ‘greatness’? Do we all aspire to greatness or is the aim in life to simply find happiness and contentment in whatever we achieve?

I have certainly been in conversations that begin with discussions about current affairs and events, which then climb to a more focused topic that was prominent and behind that event – perhaps we examine the motives or ideals involved.

I also believe that the closeness of two parties affects the discussion. If I am talking to an old friend who I haven’t connected with for a long time then the conversation begins with news about people, then events, then maybe ideas. That seems like an established social etiquette.

When networking, I feel drawn to and impressed by anyone that can speedily navigate to discussion of an idea and provide a meaningful insight. The very best networkers provide wise counsel and then connections to people that support more of this.

A preliminary investigation into networking activities within the university incubator

International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research Vol. 14 No. 4, 2008 pp. 219-241 : Maura McAdam & Susan Marlow

Research to date has identified incubator units as an effective mechanism for supporting the growth and development of small entrepreneurial firms. Advantages are gained not only from the provision of appropriate facilities and external managerial expertise on site, but also from the opportunity to develop entrepreneurial networks facilitated by the spatial proximity of incubator firms. Therefore, the purpose of this paper is to investigate the impact of context, in other words the degree to which the networking opportunities provided by the university incubator support the small firm in its pursuit of sustainability and growth.

The current research highlights the specific role of the university context in networking activities, and in particular, the development of particular types of networks, namely, social and business. Having identified the role of the university in facilitating such networks, future research needs to consider how proximity and tacit knowledge establishes the trust which underpins successful networking. However, this paper has also revealed some disadvantages of university incubator placement worthy of further consideration and research, namely, how proximity between firms is seen as a threat to intellectual property rights and also, how the image of the academic might be seen as a disadvantage within the business community.

Small Firm Networking: An Insight into Contents and Motivating Factors

International Small Business Journal 2006; 24; 5 : Eleanor Shaw

Despite significant research interest in small firm networks, gaps continue to exist in knowledge and understanding about the concept of a network and its relationship with small firms. This article seeks to build upon extant research by discussing some of the findings to emerge from a qualitative study of small firm networks. The findings presented concentrate on the contents found to exist across the social networks in which six small service firms are embedded. Discussion of these reveal the multiplexity of network relationships and emphasize the informal nature of small firm networking processes. In particular, discussion provides some insight into what motivates small firms to engage in networking and identifies areas for future research.

Interfirm Cooperation among Small Manufacturing Firms

International Small Business Journal 2008; 26; 299 : Victoria Hanna and Kathryn Walsh

This article evaluates interfirm cooperation among small manufacturing firms. Networks of small firms work together on numerous activities such as marketing,
procurement or manufacturing; however, are certain ‘enablers’ necessary for successful cooperation? To answer this question networking activities among small manufacturers were investigated. Over the course of 12 months 23 in-depth interviews were conducted: 7 with network brokers (network brokers identify opportunities, bring small firms together and facilitate cooperation), 2 with small firm business associations with an acknowledged stance on the benefits of small firm cooperation and 14 with small firms engaged in interfirm cooperation. These semi-structured discussions explored the key characteristics of successful
networks, the motives for initiating a cooperative relationship, how firms managed appropriation concerns and how they coordinated tasks. The findings indicate a clear demarcation between networking activities that are led by brokers and those that are created of the participating firms’ own volition.

Social sources of information in opportunity recognition: Effects of mentors, industry networks, and professional forums

Journal of Business Venturing 22 (2007) 174 – 192 : Eren Ozgen, Robert A. Baron

Effects on opportunity recognition of three social sources of opportunity-related information (mentors, informal industry networks, participation in professional forums) were investigated. Results indicated that all three sources had direct, positive effects on opportunity recognition by entrepreneurs. In addition, the effects of two sources (mentors and professional forums) were mediated by schema strength, while effects of the third source (informal industry networks) were mediated by self-efficacy. Results are consistent with theories of opportunity recognition that emphasize the role of information and cognitive processes, and suggest that two social sources of information not systematically investigated in previous research–mentors and participation in professional forums–can assist entrepreneurs in identifying opportunities for new ventures.

Modeling the relationship between networking and firm performance

Journal of Business Venturing 22 (2007) 852 – 874 : John Watson

Network theory suggests that successful business ownership might depend on the ability of owners to gain access to resources not under their control in a cost effective way through networking. To date, however, there has been little empirical support for this proposition, particularly for established firms. The results of this study, based on a large longitudinal database, indicate a significant positive relationship between networking (particularly with formal networks such as external accountants) and both firm survival and, to a lesser extent, growth, but not ROE. Further, network intensity is found to be associated with survival, and network range with growth.

Networking and innovation in SMEs: evidence from Guangdong Province, China

Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development Vol. 15 No. 4, 2008 pp. 788-801 : Zongling Xu, Jiali Lin & Danming Lin

investigate structural characteristics of a business network comprising small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), and to explore the relationships between such network characteristics and innovative capabilities of the participating firms

In relation to the participating firms’ innovative capabilities, density, reciprocity and multiplicity of the business network are figured out as factors with positive association, while hypotheses concerning intensity, non-redundancy and betweenness of the network are not supported