4 ms·

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 conn

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.

ghaff 3y ago
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.
- getmeinrn 3y ago
  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.
  - kevstev 3y ago
    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.
    - getmeinrn 3y ago
      >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.
  - kfrzcode 3y ago
    "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.
    - getmeinrn 3y ago
      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.
      - ghaff 3y ago
        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.
        getmeinrn 3y ago
        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.
      - BeFlatXIII 3y ago
        "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?
  - etothepii 3y ago
    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.
  - BeFlatXIII 3y ago
    Still, why constrain yourself to strict meritocracy when you can instead get ahead with some social tricks? If you're not cheating, you're not trying.
- opportune 3y ago
  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.”
  - ghaff 3y ago
    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.
- JohnFen 3y ago
  Entirely this. "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.
- denton-scratch 3y ago
  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".
barbarr 3y ago
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.
johnnyanmac 3y ago
>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.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
cowpig 3y ago
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.

ghaff 3y ago

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.

getmeinrn 3y ago
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.
- kevstev 3y ago
  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.
  - getmeinrn 3y ago
    >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.
- kfrzcode 3y ago
  "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.
  - getmeinrn 3y ago
    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.
    - ghaff 3y ago
      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.
      - getmeinrn 3y ago
        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.
    - BeFlatXIII 3y ago
      "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?
- etothepii 3y ago
  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.
- BeFlatXIII 3y ago
  Still, why constrain yourself to strict meritocracy when you can instead get ahead with some social tricks? If you're not cheating, you're not trying.
opportune 3y ago
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.”
- ghaff 3y ago
  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.
JohnFen 3y ago
Entirely this. "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.
denton-scratch 3y ago
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".

barbarr 3y ago

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.

johnnyanmac 3y ago

>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.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

cowpig 3y ago

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.