I use to think of networking as “going to events and handing out my business card”, which I could never quite bring myself to do. I figured I just wasn’t cut out for the whole networking thing.
What I ended up realising after looking back over my career was that I’ve been networking this whole time without even meaning to. By generally working hard and being friendly those who have come and gone over the years, I now have a pretty sizeable network of people who will vouch for me. If someone ever asks me for networking advice, it will be “find a job where other people are doing the same thing as you, and then become someone they enjoy working with”.
The dark side of that is discrimination when "someone they enjoy working with" is based on more than a friendly attitude and hard work.
And I'm not just talking about the politically favored and protected groups. I'd say it applies even more so to groups that don't get that political support.
To be fair, everyone kind of already knew that "it's all about who you know", so to speak. So the fact that disenfranchised people tend to stay disenfranchised is not really news to most people who followed the inevitable implications of that adage.
Nobody really understands or digs into the implications. They simply assume that if they are successful it's because they are great people while others are not great or as smart or hard working and that's why they suck. It's very difficult for privilege to understand implicit privilege... or for those looking to fix the situation to not piss people off as it's seen with those that are already in the in-group as being unfair.
That's true, but it only solves one side of the problem, where unqualified people won't get hired by pure networking. If people only get hired by networking plus performance, it still means that capable people who are pushed out of effective networking (for any of a host of reasons) will lose opportunities. They might not get bad recommendations, they simply won't be on anyone's list to call.
Even worse, it's quite possible for discrimination to become a disincentive to recommending someone, just like incompetence would be. Someone who won't be well-received for personal reasons is effectively a "bad candidate" with the potential to damage the recommender's reputation. The result is that even a person who overcomes barriers to find network connections won't necessarily be able to draw on them effectively.
(A past-tense example to cut down on politics: a Liar's Poker trader wouldn't recommend a friend who couldn't sell, but they also wouldn't recommend a skilled trader who wasn't a friend. And if they had recommended a skilled friend who wasn't a white guy, they could have expected at least as negative a reaction as if they'd recommended a bad trader.)
We don't live in a fair society, and I think we all know that. I would not have experienced the same degree of success if I looked different or had an accent, even if the quality of my work was the same. There's nothing meaningful I can do with that information though.
Of course there is ... "I think we all know that" sits, who knows, in the unconscious. Regularly bringing it to the conscious mind, like in this thread perhaps, reminds us of the possibility of making different, better choices should we have that power now, or one day.
Thats a feature not a bug. Networks are based on trust. You have a shared interest in making sure your recommendations work out and there is nothing more valuable than knowing who you recommend will work out.
Why would I choose someone I don't know and who I don't know if I can trust when I know someone else who can do the same task, I trust them and are required.
I don't really agree. I won't vouch for an asshole, but I'd much rather vouch for someone who is reserved and hard-working than overtly friendly but lazy or incompetent. I don't know of anyone I trust that feels different on that (the topic has come up many times).
I think a lot of the debate here lies in the gap between "vouch for" and "recommend".
It's not just whether people would choose friendly incompetence over reserved hard work, but whether the reserved hard worker is going to be a name anyone mentions when it's time to find a candidate.
Network with people that look like/conform to the majority power in your market. They have the same background as other people that are decision makers in that market.
Getting married to one country's politically struggling groups or disenfranchisement issues is playing a totally different game, and is a total waste of time for this game.
I do this in a lot of markets. Almost country by country when necessary. Work with someone that looks like money in that market. Go to the places they are. Don't masquerade your pride of being the front person of your company as 'progress' that society let you get that far just to inspire 4 year olds, unless that is honestly the game you are trying to play.
Although my own background and success would probably inspire people "that look like me", alongside the general distribution of wealth and status seekers
> Don't masquerade your pride of being the front person of your company as 'progress' that society let you get that far just to inspire 4 year olds, unless that is honestly the game you are trying to play.
What's the meaning of this? That a person should avoid unnecessary 'progress' PR?
> Sadly, this often takes money because powerful people tend to be in expensive areas.
Then just be honest about your lack of chances and stop preaching that ill-positioned people have a chance at all. (Not literally 'you', just the industry and society)
There is an even distribution of entrepreneurship across all levels of society, the survivorship bias leans toward the already wealthy and well-connected because they get to retry. Other people have to earn their initial capital for 10+ years, try once, earn again for the next 10+ years and get caught up with supporting some other life changing situation.
that's proper networking, but networking can also means oligarchy~ where you just get inside groups because people know you and you're just not bad enough to get the boot.
I disagree slightly. It's interesting the connections, google chats, calls, etc that have spawned from someone just seeing a random comment or commit I've done on Github. I'm definitely not a heavier contributor and have seen the effects. That may be more than your definition of passive though.
"Contributing" versus "having contributions", I suppose.
Lots of advice new-ish engineers implies that just having a Github profile with OSS work will improve prospects, when in reality most people I've seen admit that they don't even check Github profiles for applicants.
As far as the act of contributing turning into discussions, connections, and jobs, that's far more plausible. But I think it's a mistake to imply that merely having that work will provide visibility and opportunities. When people are getting offers passively on the strength of their past OSS work, they're more likely people who wrote popular libraries or led projects than just names on a contributor list.
This is the most important point. Networks are created mostly, not only born into. Success recognizes skill, by developing a skill then ASKING to work for successful organizations(big and small) the network grows naturally.
I strongly disagree with your points. Building a trusted group of peers is the most valuable action you can take in establishing a network. I don't dispute the value of mentors and high-ranking friends, I know many people who can attribute a large part of their success to the right person in the right position.
However, a group of peers provides the following benefits:
* support and camaraderie, as you are likely facing the same challenges at the same times
* a more natural connection and more conducive environment for meeting and regularly interacting
* a rising tide that raises the whole group, as you help each other gain more success
Finally, I would say that your idea comes dangerously close to the idea of "kissing up and kicking down," which I personally find to be an unfortunate and disingenuous style of network management that discourages me from working with that person.
Did the people above my pay grade just magically get there? Are none of my colleagues ever going to advance in their careers? Why wouldn't I want to cast a wide net? Why wouldn't I be friendly and nice to my coworkers?
I've gotten jobs through former co-workers who have moved on to new companies. Some of my peers have been promoted into management and having a good relationship with them prior has given me a leg up. It's so incredibly easy to network with your colleagues. Just work hard and be a decent person and the network will create itself. Acting so dismissive of colleagues is short-sighted and silly.
Oh right, I forgot to mention I'm not a wage slave and not in a hurry to become one either.
I was talking about actual business opportunities. Good luck getting anywhere by being friendly to the, quick frankly, annoyingly arrogant sysadmin. Sure, some of them are nice - although most of them aren't because of the nature of the job, but that's not the point. We all are "nice" people, that does not pay the bills.
If you could effectively network above your pay-grade, your pay-grade would be different. Then again, if you think colleagues are useless, that will likely not help anything -- does that mean if you were your own colleague, you would think you are useless?
How do those who move often (or at least a few times in their lives) manage to re-establish a network in the areas they move to? I think a lot of the reason people are reluctant to move for better opportunities on paper is the fear of the sudden lack of network.
Most of my professional networking is virtual mixed in with traveling to some events (and, of course, work colleagues though I work remotely). I do local activities with a couple clubs as well as more ad hoc things, which is good from a social perspective, but TBH it's never been especially relevant from a professional/job perspective.
Many do it through religion. My friend's dad was in the Navy, so they moved a lot. The first thing they did when they got to a new town was find a church and get heavily involved in their activities.
well ofc if you're a strong link in that network it will fade away - it's not a network in that case just a string of people you know. networking also includes introducing people who can help each other and cross pollination so the mesh is strong.
It reminds me of this research [0] showing that sons of wealthy slave owners (who presumably lost a large chunk of their "wealth" after the civil war) had caught up or surpassed sons from similarly wealthy households by 1880.
Conclusion: "This paper adds another data point to our understanding of intergenerational wealth transmission. Our conclusion: it’s not the resources here, it’s the social connections."
It's an amazing paper but their interpretation of the results that "it's all social connections" is completely unsupported by their evidence and more consistent with standard human-capital / genetic inheritance.
>who presumably lost a large chunk of their "wealth" after the civil war
I mean, having to hire labour rather than owning slaves changes the cost structure of their businesses, but it doesn't mean their plantations suddenly stopped growing things.
If anything, this points towards the idea that slavery was economically inefficient.
That's interesting but I guess expected since a major component of success is access to power and capital. I remember reading something a while back that a significant portion of the post-war japanese and german economy, industry and government were controlled by the descendents of vanquished elites.
I wonder how the children of our politicians and business elites do compared to ordinary folks? In the US, we have been brainwashed with the propaganda about meritocracy that we blindly believe as an absolute truth as children. It's only when we get older we realize that success has a lot more to do with connections than hard work.
With the right people, yes. You generally don't meet those at "networking" events. If anything, you'll find other peddlers trying to sell you something. You do meet those by throwing dinner parties, talking to and meeting interesting people, going to charity events, and through hobbies.
It's why "networking" often gets a bad rep. So many of these events are, as you say, people passing out business cards looking for consulting ops, a job, etc. By contrast, socializing, participating in various activities, staying in touch with former colleagues, and so forth is very valuable. Personally, every job I've had since the first post-graduation one has been through someone I knew. None were jobs I "applied for."
I suspect there's a disconnect between "people succeed because of their network" vs "I succeeded because of my network". I fall into that trap sometimes, and I have to remind myself I got my first dev gig because someone I'd known for a long time convinced his company to take a risk on me.
It is good that you did. I was about 20 years in before I realized that the arc of my career was built on networking that I didn't really know that I was doing.
Network scientist Zsolt Barabási said [1] that in his latest book that networking is one of the most important thing to do, if you want to be successful.
Of course, first you need to get some valuable skills, but especially in careers where the performance can’t be ordered (e.g: art, design) the only thing that matters is to know people who are well known.
His book was pretty good, skimmed through some of the extra examples, but networking is key.
I consider myself a super connector, and more often than not find myself in the right place at the right time, making connections for friends, colleagues, acquaintances, etc. I love bringing people together, changing the world ~
I like this definition of who is in your network that I came across years ago. Someone is in your network if they can recognize you if they see you in person (name tags do not count), know what you were last working on, and you had some contact with them in the last three months.
We may argue that having someone recognize you in person is not a hard requirement in this age.
At this point it should be obvious that network effects of every kind are the largest single determining factor in success, yet so many continue to believe in naive meritocracy.
Perhaps, but this is only one narrow kind of merit and it's responsible for a disproportionately large fraction of the outcome.
Networks also have gravitational type dynamics that accrue more network influence to existing influencers, so there's a huge path dependent effect where some nodes get rich network-wise by just being lucky or first.
If those nodes are the ones that get results from leveraging their networks, then it's better for the company.
I'm not saying it's "fair", just that one could argue networks are a good proxy for results, so it makes sense to reward them from the company's perspective.
The idea that it's good or clever to use rough proxies for things is one of the worse ideas to spread kind of virally through various intellectual communities in recent years. I feel like it may have spread via Less Wrong or some similar place but I'm not sure and it doesn't really matter.
Proxies for things are something you use when you can't get at the underlying reality directly. All proxies hide something and all proxies confound by mixing inputs in often non-linear and unknown ways.
In the human realm the use of proxies is a source of unfairness and injustice, so it's particularly important to avoid them there whenever it's possible.
Not using proxies means dealing more directly with reality. "Reason from first principles, not by analogy."
I can't help but wonder about the tautologies of such a system. If you only hire people with silly hats and spend 70% of their time on sillier hats you are missing out on actual talent with stupid tautologies instead of anything of intrinsic worth.
Essentially I suspect that networks don't bring success in many cases but prevent it in others.
The real question is what keeps networks from being collective madness in service of themselves? The closest thing I have found is competition smacking them in the face with objective reality.
History and the present is rife with bad ideas perpetuated by networks - perhaps the reason why science advances one funeral at a time even in face of evidence that it really doesn't work that way. Look at miasma theory and their resistance to germ theory even after cholera outbreaks where brewers were untouched because they got some pay in beer.
WW2 era Imperial Japan was a particularly bad example given things like Banzai Charges and acknowledging weakness being socially unacceptable to the point of thinking even complete destruction of the navy of a much larger and self-sufficient industrial naval power over oil sanctions would somehow result in restoring oil supplies instead of eventually coming over with a much bigger navy and airforce in a decade /in the avsolute best case scenario/.
I've seen this recently in my job search. I reached out to 2 ex-coworkers who are now leads/managers looking for work. Both offered my jobs without hesitation, because they have seen me work and know what I'm worth.
However, going through traditional routes, I have something like 15+ no-responses, 10 tech screen rejections, and 3 on-sites with 2 offers.
From my personal point of view networking is everything or at least 99%.
I want to share my experience with you since I hold the people in this forum in high regard. Not paying attention to this "social" issues has deeply affected my career and now I'm at a point where there are few opportunities left for me (mainly due to age, mid 30s now). I really need some help now as I don't know how to turn my life around, this is very important for me as I have a wife + daughter that expect me to be their primary provider. Any good intended advice to improve on this will be greatly appreciated.
I prefer to be an introvert (but I am not shy) person and do not rapidly establish strong relationships with the people around me. I am the kind of person that has 3 or 4 friends at most, goes to work, does what it needs to do without much fanfare and goes back home to sleep/read. I've been like this since I was in high school. This was a personal choice back then, my reasoning was: "study hard, work hard and the rest will come to you".
I come from a low-middle class family that made themselves from the ground, as a result, work ethics are very deeply ingrained in my principles. I have never failed to deliver what I promise on a school or work related environment. I do not mean to offend anyone with this but I have to say it just to further clarify my situation: I do not have any physical or mental disabilities, I dress appropriately, I'm white (although not American/European) and I do not behave in an awkward manner.
Not paying attention to networking while I was in school and at previous jobs has severely limited my options for professional development. I almost never get good job offers, promotions or even proper acknowledgement for the things I do. They mostly go to people around me, some of whom severely lack what's needed for the job, mainly due to their closeness to someone at HR, got tipped off by some friend, ... you get the idea. As a result of this, despite having done everything "good", my career really never took off. I'm stuck in the same kind of developer job as I had 10 years ago. Now the walls are closing in since people raise an eyebrow when they see my age, I cannot just go and hunt for jobs as easily as I could five years ago. Right now, I'm at a terrible company and I truly hate my current job () I don't want to go in detail as I'm really not like that). I cannot just leave since I have bills to pay and also because I'm scared of not finding anything else. I know almost no-one in the industry and my few friends have different ways of life.
I would like to read some practical advice on how may I expand my reach to (hopefully) find better job prospects. Among other things, I tried to join some related meetups in my area, but honestly they are mostly made up of people who take it as a hobby (not that there's anything wrong with that). I truly don't know what else I could do.
Your question is really good and I hope you get some meaningful answers out of it, I am just here to help you in another regard: timing.
This was posted 9 hours ago and your comment about 8h30 hours after its initial 'interest boom'. Usually things die out in hacker news after a night or so so you probably won't get many answers out of this.
My lateral advice to you is: keep your eye open for more of those "how did you get out of your {mindless|boring|notwhatiwant} job" posts that usually appear here every 2 months. These posts attract lots of people and are usually very active for almost 2-3 days before people stop answering.
If you catch'em early certainly you are gonna get lots of answers.
Someone that may or may not be me might have found one of those posts someday in HN and he was lucky to come up with a quick throwaway account and post almost exactly the same content as yours and he got (quite a lot of) meaningful answers out of it from people from varied walks of life.
Good luck on your stuff, you are not alone in this "problem" you have.
Also, pat yourself on the back everyday for providing for your family and keeping strong even tho you hate what you do on a daily basis. You are doing good for your peers.
Seems like you're scared of changing jobs because you think there will inevitably be a gap between your old job and looking for your new job--this doesn't need be the case. You can start looking for other jobs while you work, and interview. You've got nothing to lose. This is a golden age for developers and mid thirties is YOUNG, not old. Just make sure you also pick up some in-demand tech or at least update your capabilities to be at least aware of what's "modern" as a lot has changed in 10 years depending on your focus area.
It is not too late. Basic advice is to give value without expecting anything directly in return. To be the person producing (at the front of the room), not just consuming (in the audience). You want to try to become the local maximum in a certain space time coordinate (e.g. monthly meetup giving talk).
You don’t have to be the keynote speaker, to start. This can be as simple as volunteering to give a lightning talk at a local meetup on something that you are interested in. More often than not, other people may be interested in the things you are interested in. Or hang out on special interest Slacks or discords.
Please post this as a separate Ask HN. However, I don’t know if there is a threshold for posting this as an Ask HN. If your throwaway account does not have enough points, we could post it for you.
You have experience, use it to improve your product/team/company. You have to stand behind your opinions and push to make yourself heard. Take control of your time. Be willing to lose your job, whether it's from quitting or being fired for muckraking. Best shot is probably to find a small company that gives you a better culture and more opportunity to shine even if it means a little more effort. Google local venture funds and reach out to companies among their portfolios, if possible, or find remote work if there's no nearby tech/business scene. Linkedin, Indeed, AngelList, StackOverflow., TripleByte... there's no shortage of job boards. But no one is going to apply for you. Find ways to build your courage and self-confidence outside of work if nothing else. Physical hobbies are great for this, especially rock climbing which requires directly overcoming fear of failure to achieve success.
Mid-thirties is nothing. A team I used to work for hired a couple older devs (much older than you) that were truly terrible, and they are still at that company. Jobs are out there and if you're any good you'll find work. Don't let your age be an excuse. You can't change your age. Only valid excuses IMO are dire financial or health issues - repairing those would be priority number one.
By far the easiest place to network is within your current company, so your first priority should be doing a good job and building relationships there. You're network will naturally expand externally as people you currently work with leave your company.
Networking doesn't just mean meeting people for the sake of meeting people.
* Volunteer for tasks that get you in front of customers or internal teams that you don't normally work with. You'll build relationships as a side effect of good work.
* When you accomplish something that may be applicable outside your team, ask your boss if they could find out it if any other teams would like a demo or presentation from you.
* Whenever possible prefer face-to-face conversations over email, IM or tickets. Even if an email or ticket is required, start with face-to-face. Introduce yourself if you haven't met face-to-face before, even if you have communicated electronically before. This builds relationships so much faster.
You say that you are a person that "does what it needs to do without much fanfare and goes back home". I used to approach my job like this, and I too got really frustrated where things where headed when I hit 30. At the end of the day completing your tasks is only 50% of what is necessary to have a career, the other 50% is relationships. At 31 I decided to make an effort to get out of my comfort zone, and I can draw a straight line from this to where I am now (went from mid-level dev to sr dev, and now tech lead on a big project in 3 years).
By far the best resource I have ever found on this topic is the Career Tools podcast. I would start with their "Solution to a Stalled Technical Career" cast (https://www.manager-tools.com/2005/06/solution-to-a-stalled-...) then browse the map of their old podcasts to find the ones on networking, presentations, meeting prep, how to introduce yourself, etc to find stuff you're interested in (https://www.manager-tools.com/map-universe/relationships). They give advice that is specific with steps you can follow immediately, not just general guidelines.
I also highly recommend their interview series, but it's not free ($150). IMO it is well worth it, even if you're not interviewing any time soon, if you're like me talking about yourself is incredibly difficult, and learning how to talk about your accomplishments crisply, truthfully and confidently is an extremely valuable skill for those times when you meet someone senior (or anyone really) who asks about what you're working on or if you've done anything interesting lately.
Another good resource is the book "What got you here won't get you there by Marshall Goldsmith which talks about similar things and how sometimes to take the next step you need to learn new skills, not just hone your existing skills.
Solid advice but I'm still trying to build my value ... so far I am worthless.
I think the networking aspect itself is also an aspect of being at the right place at the right time.
One can't ask others to pull strings unless you can pull something yourself.
Corollary to Dunning-Kruger perhaps: the productive view themselves as inadequate, leading to a number of insecurities, while the boorish liabilities view themselves as masterful, omnipotent polyglots.
This is all very true. As an introvert with a non-photographic memory for faces, I don't always find it easy. But it's definitely easier and more rewarding when you just look to connect and help people, trying to "pay in" to the karma pool.
Also, it takes work to create and maintain relationships.
(I created a little web-based calculator to help you estimate your "Maximum Social Network": https://www.mimiran.com/the-maximum-social-network/ It's a little surprising how small a real network is, at least in the first degree.)
I don’t think networking matters that much. In the tech business at least.
Most of my business are in new niches where I knew no one. This is fine. People are usually nice, open, and want to work with you if you can demonstrate value. Relying on your network can throw in the wrong way as people just don’t know the specific of whatever industry you are in. The hardest thing is execution not befriending smart or influential people.
Sorry to go on a tangent, but that's John Lurie on the left in the second photo by Andy Warhol. I'm surprised to see he brushed shoulders with Basquiat and the rest.
Too much confirmation bias in the article. Of course if you like networking you want to justify spending time on it. Realistically, though, it's better to be known of by many people, than to meet just a few people in person on the off chance this could help you. Given a choice people would rather choose who they know of, than someone they don't. This is how marketing, advertising works. Hence why the author himself is spending time writing articles and tries to reach many people, not meeting them in person.
It did in past, it doesn't mean it still works. Sometimes, networks can bring more damage than help because of individual instabilities (e.g. snowflakes). For all the reasons, it looks harder to have a healthy network as people used to have 20 years ago, imho.
You are right about damage it can do. But it also does good.
Newton/Maxwell/Faraday were part of very interesting networks. Their results could have easily come out of Italy, France, India or China if better networks existed there.
The better we understand networks, the better we get at building useful ones. No one questions the amount of effort/resources/time that goes into constructing a world class sports team. That is only possible with a right network.
And in depth study of human networks is a new thing because historically where was the data?
As we have got more interconnected, in more and more fields people are increasing how much they focus on Networks.
Niall Ferguson's recent book The Square and The Tower, is all about when networks succeed and when they fail using a whole bunch of key events from History.
Thomas Malone's recent Superminds the same thing applied to businesses.
We are just getting started at how we apply this knowledge. Computational Social/Political Science departments are springing up all over the place.
Just adding one connection or deleting one connection in a graph of people is all it takes to create major change.
What I ended up realising after looking back over my career was that I’ve been networking this whole time without even meaning to. By generally working hard and being friendly those who have come and gone over the years, I now have a pretty sizeable network of people who will vouch for me. If someone ever asks me for networking advice, it will be “find a job where other people are doing the same thing as you, and then become someone they enjoy working with”.