
Good News for Young Strivers: Networking Is Overrated - wallflower
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/24/opinion/sunday/networking-connections-business.html
======
anotherbrownguy
The article gives example of Justin Bieber and Adele. For those two examples,
there are hundreds who got where they are just because they knew someone
important. Miley Cyrus, Jaden Smith, Charlie Sheen, Ben Stiller, Angelina
Jolie, Paris Hilton. Actors/singers make very poor examples for this given
that most of them mostly get to where they are by networking more than
anything else.

Lets say there was an absolute master of his profession that nobody knows.
Compare that to someone who knows enough to get by when it comes to his
profession but knows most people there is to know in the industry. In general,
which one is more likely to get hired? Who will have better references? Who is
likely to know about vacancies before they are announced? Are companies
willing to hire someone because he answered more question in a test even vs
who did OK but has a lot of good references from respectable people, some of
whom they personally know?

Someone who only cares about a better paying job should spend 90% of their
time in networking and 10% on honing their profession because networking is
all that matters. Someone who absolutely loves their work will happily do
their share of work for a lower pay.

~~~
pavlov
I would add that many of the very best artists owe their careers to knowing
the right person at the critical moment.

In a recent interview, composer Randy Newman explained how childhood
connections got him into the business:

 _" Newman started writing songs because his childhood friend Lenny Waronker,
who later became the president of Warner Bros. Records, suggested that he try
it. “He knew who Carole King was and stuff. His dad had started a record
company,” Newman said."_

[http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/08/21/randy-newman-
co...](http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/08/21/randy-newman-contemplates-
the-universe)

He is brilliant, but might have gone unnoticed if his best buddy had not been
a second-generation record company executive.

~~~
enraged_camel
The funny thing is that people get angry when the same logic is applied to
tech legends.

Wozniak would have stayed in HP and probsbly remained fairly unknown if Jobs
had not convinced him to start Apple with him.

~~~
warcher
And vice versa. Jobs got where he was by (not likely coincidentally) finding a
person with Woz's combination of genius and gullibility. Woz didn't get a
remotely fair shake from Jobs, and there are not a ton of guys dumb enough to
ride that ride and smart enough to deliver what Woz delivered.

~~~
jimbokun
Woz isn't dumb, just had different priorities in life. If you sum up the total
happiness over the course of Jobs and Woz lives, Woz might come out ahead.

~~~
warcher
An excellent point. Who's the smart one at the end of the day? Woz seems to
have all the money he needs and all the fame I think he can stand. There's a
lot to be said for quitting while you're ahead.

~~~
spiderjerusalem
Fame does not bode well for some archetypes. Some of us are really better off
actively avoiding the spotlight.

------
ChuckMcM
From the article: _" It's true that networking can help you accomplish great
things. But this obscures the opposite truth: Accomplishing great things help
you develop a network."_

This is something that I wished I had understood way earlier in my career.
Basically that cause and effect are often inverted when people talk about the
network effect. People who do some thing well, or are passionate about, often
will accumulate a network of others who are interested in that same thing. And
because they know a bunch of people who are also interested in that thing,
when they hit a roadblock or a problem they have people they can reach out to
for help or insights.

What is hard is _discovery_ which is to say that the greatest programmer in
the world who sits in his shack and writes perfect code that is beautiful and
functional, is invisible.

There is a joke about the guy who complains "I make no money at all from
stocks." and the friend says "What stocks do you own?" and the complainer
responds "Oh I don't own any stocks, have no use for them, I just want money
from them."

Attention and focus is like 'money from stocks' if you share what you're doing
and your understanding with people you give them some advantage and perhaps
some new understanding. That advantage comes back in the form of referrals or
opportunities that you were not present to see when the person you shared with
recognizes an opportunity as something you would be interested in. It also
allows you to be "discovered" two or three hops down the road when someone
says "Oh I know someone who is interested in that ..."

~~~
nerdponx
For most people, it's typically difficult to accomplish great things without
mentorship and support. Which, in turn, typically require a network of some
kind, whether it be family, teachers and classmates, or professional contacts.

~~~
ChuckMcM
I completely agree with this statement:

    
    
       >  it's typically difficult to accomplish great things 
       >  without mentorship and support.
    

And this is how I have seen it play out as I've mentored folks. When someone
talks with others about the great things they are _trying_ to accomplish (as
opposed to people talk about great things they _say_ they will accomplish) and
listens for useful feedback, they not only develop a network of mentors, but
they advance in their understanding of the task at hand.

When I was president of the local robotics club we asked people who were
building robots to tell us what we wanted them to accomplish. In my case I
wanted a robot that would respond to a voice command for a Diet Dr Pepper, go
fetch it, replace stock if the refrigerator was low, and bring it back to me.
When I started that quest in the mid '80s it was a pretty tall order. Some
people just said "you're crazy, that is too complicated for a robot to do."
But the people who were worth listening too asked good questions like "Is it
important that the refrigerator is general purpose or can you modify it to
make it easier for the robot to access?" That led to ideas like the "Giant
Tube of Sodas" refrigerator idea where soda was put into the tube at the top,
the tube is wrapped in cooling coils, the bottom is easy access for a robot
gripper. The questions and the mentorship I received not only taught me about
some of the things I didn't know (like inverse kinematics for robotics) but
also how to ask about what the real problem was versus the apparent problem
(using a "regular" fridge is a lot harder problem than a custom fridge for
example).

The people who are successful, and incidentally develop strong networks, are
the ones that share what they are trying to accomplish and listen to the
feedback; while not being discouraged by the "that's a stupid goal" type
feedback.

~~~
ropman76
Building on that even, the most fun I have had at "networking" was listening
to other developers talk about some of the problems they are working to solve
in their jobs/areas of interest. Half the events I enjoy going to are
partially motivated by "I wonder if so and so found away to fix x issue"

------
bitL
Technology used to be a bit more immune to cronyism in the past, now it's
epidemic for anything above grunt positions - for grunts grueling interviews
are in place, for higher ups it's now totally who knows whom and who does
something for whom. I want to throw up every time my organization posts a new
job position at a higher level and I get bombarded by managers inquiring if
their friend or two can't get in there, bypassing whoever would be deserving
the spot by working at a lower level - frankly, I don't understand how those
people can look into a mirror...

~~~
afarrell
Its not about what you know.

Its not about who you know either.

Its about whom you can trust to solve problems and decide wisely -- It always
has been and until there is a clearly rational way to evaluate trustworthiness
to do an ambiguous job, it always will be.

~~~
bitL
It's always about who shares your own biases or persuades you his simulation
of what you expect is adequate to fool you a'la Faceless Man.

------
Jun8
After giving some examples of very poor networking efforts (if those can even
be called that) the author moves on the the banal conclusion that networking
is important, too, but you have to have something to say.

Nowadays, when I get a chance to mentor younglings my main point is that
networking is a HUGE part of success (other important point being not to waste
time on a PhD, but that's another topic). As with any effort you have to learn
how to do it, of course. Harassing people for their contact info, etc. is a
networking anti pattern.

~~~
mjw1007
I agree: the article may well be right that a cold-calling style of
'networking' doesn't do much, but it doesn't seem to have anything to suggest
that the good oldfashioned "having the right parents" kind is no good.

~~~
ghaff
I think that's about right. I periodically get something along the lines of
"I'm one of the 50,000 people who went to one of the same schools you did and
I'm interested in a job at your company." I might exchange some info but I'm
certainly not going to bat for someone I have a very peripheral connection
with.

On the other hand, every job I've gotten since school has been very directly
through someone I had worked with in some manner and knew well. In none of the
cases did I go through a standard application process.

------
SkyMarshal
Shotgun networking, where you go to meetups just to get as much facetime and
intro's as possible but with no real connection to people, is overrated.

But thoughtfully targeted networking where you're able to identify a small
number of people who have something of unique value to you, and then bring
something of similar value to them, resulting in a potential mutually high-
value collaboration, is not overrated.

------
jknoepfler
The author conflates networking with shameless self-shilling. This makes for a
pretty thin strawman.

Networking, in the sense of maintaining strong professional relationships and
having a presence at professional events, creates a strong passive upwards
pressure for someone who is talented. If you "spring to mind" as someone I can
trust to "do X," or if you spring into the mind of the person I task with
finding someone to "do X," then you are that much more likely to be offered
the opportunity to "do X".

You may find the same kinds of "do X" opportunities through other means, but
as X becomes increasingly specialized and requires more trust, networking
becomes more and more important. For example, I can mass broadcast an ad for
entry-level Java developers. I cannot do that to find a systems architect to
design a high uptime, low latency, massive throughout web service. I'm likely
to go to a short list for the latter and avoid interviews completely, if at
all possible.

Obviously accomplishments are important. Accomplishment one of the foundations
of a strong professional identity. Without evidence of your abilities,
networking won't put you on anyone's short list. That's a catch-22, and you
also need luck and the ability to inspire someone to take a chance on you to
get your foot in the door. Both of those are improved dramatically by
networking.

~~~
vacri
> _The author conflates networking with shameless self-shilling._

I found the same. Cold-calling and party tricks (like dropping businesscards
into bags) is not 'networking'. It's one aspect of it, yes, but a minor one.

Not to mention that plenty of us know people who are awesome at their craft,
yet never seem to get anywhere with it. Arguing from outliers like major pop
stars means nothing for the 'real' people below them.

------
fnbr
The thing about networking is that good networking is extremely important, but
that's not what "Networking" is.

In every job I have, I try to grab lunch with people everyday so that I can
talk to them and get to know them. I also try to regularly meet new people in
my field and get to know them. I've found that to be extremely valuable.

However, I've found going to networking events to be an extreme waste of time.
The people who go usually aren't the successful professionals, which is who I
want to meet. I've found going for drinks with friends- and their friends- to
be much more valuable.

~~~
antisthenes
So how does one break out of this catch-22?

How do you become a successful professional if you're never given the
opportunity to earn trust where it is also visible enough to develop a strong
network?

~~~
ghaff
Basically you start with people you interact with naturally and move outward
from there. Schoolmates, co-workers, ex-co-workers. Present at events if you
can create an opportunity to do so. Blog. And so forth.

It actually seems as if it's much easier today. At my first job in the tech
industry, which I had for a long time, there were fewer opportunities to talk
about what I was doing outside the company. (Although my next two jobs still
came directly from people I met at that company.)

------
dsacco
I don't agree with the article's titular thesis or the rather extreme examples
it uses. I attribute the majority of my career success thus far to my ability
to make conversation and present my (often highly technical) ideas in an
engaging and compelling way. Raw technical ability is excellent, but it's an
inefficient method of capturing opportunities.

This article opens with a strong claim and several distasteful examples of
desperate behavior associated with networking. But I wouldn't consider those
"networking" in the general sense of the word; rather they are one stunt-based
manifestation of it. Contrary to the article's point, you do not need to
abandon networking to focus on being so good that you're attention getting.
The examples given - Bieber and Adele being "found" through raw wow factor -
do not resemble the way that networking organically occurs in the real world,
and are very dependent on luck. Bieber and Adele would still be impressive
successes if they had networked for it, and indeed the article concedes that
many successful startup founders had a pre-established network _in addition_
to their skillsets.

I think there's too much baggage attached to the idea of networking. You don't
want to try and network as though it is a high-pressure sales tactic. Instead,
focus on developing social skills and charisma. You also don't need to wait
until you are extraordinary to network with people. There's no guideline for
networking because there doesn't need to be one, it arises organically if you
talk with people who have the same interests. There's another principle I have
found with regards to networking - it is better to prioritize network quantity
instead of quality. You want a minimum "quality" per contact, for sure, but
you will find that access to extremely high quality contacts emerges in your
network once you've hit a critical mass of people you can email on a first
name basis (for example). If you're constantly trying to "collect" high-impact
contacts without bootstrapping your way towards it organically, you'll be more
pressured to pull the inane antics the article talks about.

In other words, and for practical advice: people seriously overthink
networking and these examples of e.g. pitching a VC at an open mic event are
not examples of organic networking. Just talk to people for the sake of
talking to people. I have had incredible opportunities come to me and met
awesome people because I wrote insightful Hacker News or reddit comments.
Whenever I can I try to email someone who is talking about something I'm
interested in.

------
zebraflask
"Networking makes us feel dirty — to the point that one study found that
people rate soap and toothpaste 19 percent more positively after imagining
themselves angling to make professional contacts at a cocktail party."

Really? If you're around unpleasant people, sure, but I at least have
typically enjoyed meeting new people in the industry. "Networking" is just
another word for "having a conversation."

The implication of this piece is unclear to me. Most people, by definition,
are average and aren't going to suddenly pop out masterpiece whatevers that
bring them fame and fortune. You'd think a little networking wouldn't hurt.
It's better than staying at home and staring at the TV, right?

------
etjossem
_Networking makes us feel dirty — to the point that one study found that
people rate soap and toothpaste 19 percent more positively after imagining
themselves angling to make professional contacts at a cocktail party._

Tip for writers: if you can use the same data to just as reasonably arrive at
the opposite conclusion - "we want to feel clean and presentable before
impressing other people" \- then don't present your vague conjecture as fact.
The article started to lose me as soon as I read this part. It was like a red
flag of bad journalism went up.

People who have something to show for themselves find networking easier than
people who are faking it? Sure, I believe that, but that's hardly news.

------
pcsanwald
The author uses several musical examples, and I've worked as a professional
musician for a long, long time.

Waiting for a music exec or manager to somehow hear your work is a terrible
strategy. On average, if you wait around to be discovered, you'll be waiting a
long time.

In music, networking is hugely important to being successful. Going to
people's gigs, meeting others, and similar was hugely important for me to
establish myself as a working musician when I moved across the country last
year. But, effective networking is most necessary and productive in "gig" type
economies.

In tech, meetups and such aren't always great networking opportunities because
the way most technical people collaborate is in the work environment, and most
people change jobs rarely. Contrast this with most musical relationships,
where it's much easier to exchange information and call a new person for a
gig, which happens many times per week usually.

I'm sensitive to this because early in my music career, I severely undervalued
the value of networking, and watched many of my colleagues (all of whom were
excellent at networking) get good gigs and opportunities. As soon as I
realized I was undervaluing networking, I made a correction, and subsequently
have had a much more satisfying life as a musician.

------
davidgerard
I've just written a book. (It's about social implications of a technology.)
Pretty much all the sales I'm making are networking, one way or another. It's
a good book! People who read it love it! But it's self-published, and I
haven't worked out how the heck to get people to write about it, and so my
sales are all word of mouth from happy readers. It's just become a college
textbook (!!) so I'm doing at least _something_ right ...

Writing it was the same. I posted the whole draft to my Facebook in chunks,
and this improved it _amazingly_ , because my friends, like yours, are
querulous nerds, and my goodness a querulous nerd given permission to be as
querulous as they like, _well._ But I'm 50, and I've spent a few decades
accumulating _hundreds_ of contacts who are smart people who are experts in
things that I'm not. And I totally relied on them to make this not suck.

I'm a huge nerd. But even my beep-boop sysadmin day job is, frankly, 50%
public relations and getting people to do stuff because they feel they should
because I asked nicely. Networking.

When I started, I too was bereft of network. But my first IT job was courtesy
... networking! And my second. And my third.

tl;dr _Do your damnedest to be a social supernode. Make sure you know
everyone, such that if you don 't then you'll know someone who does._ And keep
in touch with them. It'll pay off _big_ down the line.

(I went through Facebook last week and visited the pages of every one of the
1000+ people I have friended, to say hi and see what they were up to. Don't
trust The Algorithm to maintain your relationships.)

~~~
jventura
What's the name of your book?

~~~
inerg
Looks like if you look at his profile it's linked there. I've put it below for
simplicity.

Attack of the 50 Foot Blockchain
[https://www.amazon.com/dp/B073CPP581/](https://www.amazon.com/dp/B073CPP581/)

------
kelukelugames
I've worked almost a dozen jobs and internships. Starting from mowing lawns in
high school, every single one was at least partly attributable to knowing
someone.

------
Bretts89
I can attribute a lot of my professional value to my professional and even
personal network. I've found they key is to network before you need to network
so you're not always looking for something. That way you can look for ways to
provide value and serve your network. That's how you build solid
relationships.

------
Klockan
Networking is like smoking, people like doing it and when people like doing
things they start thinking that it is actually beneficial.

------
debacle
Isn't this just math?

Networking is a system for making connections. Desirable connections are
relatively rare. The pool of people networking is full of people trying to
make desirable connections but has a small amount of people whom are desirable
to network with. The more people there are "trying to network," the fewer
desirable connections as a percentage of total connections there will be,
assuming an even remotely chaotic coupling.

I've met a lot (a _lot_ ) of people who I would have no interest networking
with. I'm sure for more valuable targets, the number is orders of magnitude
higher.

------
devdad
> "And don’t feel pressure to go to networking events. No one really mixes at
> mixers. Although we plan to meet new people, we usually end up hanging out
> with old friends."

Well yes, if you choose to. I wish the article could keep the focus of the
positive effects that creating great things leads to, and not try to position
it as an opposite of networking.

Networking is gold. Networkers that also produce extraordinary things will get
even better results.

------
projectramo
Some of the other comments here focus on the poor examples of networking.

What about the larger point: that networking is an effect of achievement, not
a cause.

If the author is correct, even "good" networking is not as effective as making
something worth making. (I assume that this "maker" bias is intuitively
appealing to the larger HN community.)

~~~
neerkumar
Not necessarily. You can do great networking without having built anything.

Say you are a student. Some startup founder starts a business where she
targets college students. You like her business. You then reach out to her
telling her you are emailing all students in your dept via internal dept email
list or FB groups to let them know about her startup.

That's great networking. That person will help you in future for sure. And you
haven't really built anything yet.

~~~
projectramo
Will they help you for sure? Or only if they know you are good at what you do?

~~~
neerkumar
I think if you put some effort to help people, you will get help regardless of
your skills by many of them. But that help will not be that useful in the long
run if you don't have the skills to take advantage of it.

Stupid example: if you have helped me in the past, and then ask me for a
referral at my company, I will certainly do it regardless of your skills and I
will get you an interview. But then it is up to you to pass the interview.
Networking opens up opportunities. It doesn't make you successful. If you
randomly meet me at a conference and ask for referral, I won't do it.

And that's really the kind of networking 95% of people are looking for. It is
not meet the #1 investor in the world or similar.

------
vmarsy
From one of the sources of the article: [1]

>> In Study 1, White and Asian nonnative speakers using the same scripted
responses as native speakers were found to be significantly less likely to be
recommended for a middle-management position, and this bias was fully mediated
by assessments of their political skill.

>> Nonnative speakers were found to have a significantly lower likelihood of
receiving new-venture funding

That's an interesting bias, I wonder if/how it varies by accents, as those can
be quite different. Are foreign accents from countries where English is still
a major language like U.K., Australia, India, ..., perceived differently than
foreign accents from non english-speaking countries?

[1]
[http://psycnet.apa.org/record/2013-28924-001](http://psycnet.apa.org/record/2013-28924-001)

------
pathpari
This is a very interesting piece and true as well but with a catch.

The article seems to advising students not to Network and just focus on
building a product or a solution that is worthy of attention. But if you read
it carefully, it actually not saying so. The title itself says that Networking
is overrated, it doesn't say it's useless.

To build a strong Network a combination of three things are needed:

#1: Character - How you treat others #2: Competence - How good you are at
something #3: Consistency - How are you able to stay connect with your network

This article is about the second element of competence, it not reducing the
value of other two, rather is advising students not to reduce the value of
competence.

All three have equal weight and if students start to rely just on networking,
they may struggle. That is a fair point.

Good piece.

Paritosh Pathak Strategic Networking Coach

------
jondubois
If anything, this article only highlights the fact that it's very difficult to
get the attention of investors. It demonstrates how important networking has
become but I do understand the point about 'empty connections' \- I've tried
the cold approach in the past.

What it says basically is that you have to be really talented first and have
done a lot of work... After that all you can do is wait and hope that you get
lucky; try to network slowly but don't try too hard to the point of scaring
away investors.

In my case, I started an open source project, it's somewhat popular within its
niche - To most people it means nothing at all but on a few occasions I met
people who knew about my project and when I told them about my work their eyes
lit up and they treated me quite positively (E.g. they try to hire me).

------
chi17
I agree about networking being overrated.

What's better than networking is being good at your job, enjoying it, and
enjoying working with those around you.

If you do those things, you'll have the network you need.

If you don't, get serious about finding it.

------
withdavidli
Tldr, networking is not overrated, just poorly implemented by many.

Poor choice of title for a good article. If you enjoyed this article and like
to learn to implement value added techniques I suggest Ramit Sethi's blog
iwillteachyoutoberich, not the scam it sounds like lol.

Building a network is important to increase opportunities. It's much easier to
be on the receiving end of people wanting to connect with you once people know
you can provide value/you have accomplished something they are interested in.

------
riazrizvi
Networking is Marketing for humans, and most here understand how the Product-
Marketing relationship works for apps. There isn't much point in marketing if
you, the product, have no value to the customer. Also it follows that some
people's product is their ability to market. These are the anomalies to the
title, and these are the ones we see networking all the time, the schmoozers.

------
j45
Networking, when defined as a competition of who can speak the most about
themselves has little value.

Networking, when defined as a practice of always adding value first, and
seeking other similar givers to build your network around is invaluable.
Takers are everywhere and learning to recognize and filter them as needed is a
critical skill.

------
Overtonwindow
From the world of politics, and government relations, it is nearly impossible
to get anything done, or rapid career advancement (save getting elected to
public office) without networking. My world is built on who you know, and
being able to reach other people you don't know when you need to.

------
cbanek
Confucius said it better and shorter 2500 years ago:

Instead of being concerned that you have no office, be concerned to think how
you may fit yourself for office. Instead of being concerned that you are not
known, seek to be worthy of being known.

------
neerkumar
Horrible article. Networking doesn't mean asking someone for her email address
or exchanging business cards.

Networking means creating meaningful relationships based on mutual benefits.
If you are in a position to help someone, help her. She will then help you
back later on when she can. And this is by no means overrated. If anything is
underrated.

~~~
pasbesoin
Perhaps. But you should experience some of the "networking" advice that is
foisted on the average job-seeker, fresh out of college or otherwise.

One reason it is difficult for some people; it reeks of superficiality if not
insincerity.

~~~
et-al
Yeah, there are explicit "networking events," which are generally horrible
because there's no subtlety to them.

Then there's tech meetups or conferences, where you and I might nerd out over
common problems we've had to solve, and in the process realise that we _might_
enjoy working with the other person.

The thing is, one has to put in the work _and_ put themself out there. Luck is
what happens when preparation meets opportunity.

~~~
pasbesoin
Yes. But college/university career counseling staffs and unemployment bureaus
of various sorts and the like leave a lot of people with an early, negative
impression of networking.

People who may have had a lot of opportunity in their life/careers and who
tend to fall into productive and interesting networking scenarios, should at
least know that for a lot of the... well, I can really only speak for the
U.S.... by dint of experience, "networking" \-- at least as a formal and
promoted activity -- is a dirty word.

And having quickly looked at the OP story, I also recall some very
uncomfortable feelings, watching someone aggressively pursue a senior
executive's email or phone number. E.g. this fellow or gal comes to a friend's
purely social event, and ends up having to handle undesired and poorly couched
attempts at professional connections.

And the few times I've been talked into attempting to "work the system" in
such a fashion? Still make me shudder.

P.S. Or the person who's picked up their license as a mortgage broker, and the
conversations you attempt to dance around whenever your own looming home
purchase comes up. And...

Even at the everyday level, a side of "networking" that's kind of a pain to
deal with.

Anyway... I mostly agree with the article. Have something they're genuinely
interested in.

------
peter_retief
Correct, avoid people they will suck your time and energy. Be very selfish
with your time, you will never get a nano-second back

~~~
phren0logy
Um. I guess it depends on what you are optimizing for?

~~~
peter_retief
In my case I need time for my family, time for my friends, time for my work as
a developer, time for research, time to complete work to get paid. I get
requests for work that I have to turn people away so you are correct it isn't
what I am optimising for, Networking is very far down the list ;)

------
alexanderstears
I hope all my competition believes as much.

I can't tell if the author has identified a straw man or a weak man, but I
don't think serious, accomplished people give out the advice that successful
networking = acting like a pest and creating hollow relationships.

Maybe we need a better way to describe networking, right now we use the same
work to describe establishing credibility and rapport with like minded people
and attempting to become a barnacle / remora on a successful person.

I don't know if I've ever consciously networked, but seeking out like-minded
people and engaging them with interesting discussion / ideas has served me
well. Though I work in a technical capacity and it does seem as though people-
management is qualitatively different but not completely divorced.

I've seen talentless hacks rise up (or fail up?) but the success was never
sustainable and for some reason, all those people never saved enough money for
the inevitable rainy day: they blow something up or lose a game of executive
musical chairs, leave, and can't swindle their way into a comparable job.

However, it's been my experience that the vast majority of executives who have
held onto their executive position for longer than 2 power struggles are very
deserving of the position. Sure, a lot of them let off the gas relative to the
performance that got them into their role. But they're extraordinarily capable
people.

The only way to really sustain positive career trajectory is through
accomplishment (and unfortunately, accomplishment isn't a guarantee of a
successful career). And if you can't do that, you have to skate by on 'luck'.

Cronyism seems to ebb and flow, I think there's a lot of it right now because
most businesses aren't that competitive. But if we get some creative
destruction going, we'll see the balance of power shift more decisively
towards makers and doers.

One trend that I've seen in the past 3 years that I like a lot is more salary
growth opportunity for technical employees. 5 years ago, I saw a lot of
companies stall people out, "if you want to make more money you have to become
a manager". But a lot of companies lost a lot of talent and now they're
correcting their dumb policy.

How is this related to network? It's just a consideration and optimization
problem (and maybe a problem that maps well to your sociability) but
networking shouldn't be a 4 letter word. If you're not enjoying it, you'll
probably be well-rewarded to find a way to make it more enjoyable and that's
pretty easy if you enjoy some element of your profession.

I'm reminded of The Last Psychiatrist's article, "This Is Why The American
Dream Is Out Of Reach". It's also about a NYT article.

[http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2010/08/this_is_why_the_ameri...](http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2010/08/this_is_why_the_american_dream.html)

there's a deeper problem: people see personal connections and favors as key
path to prosperity. Sure, they help. But the most lucrative opportunities
aren't the chance to meet someone important, the most lucrative opportunities
are those that involve solving a problem. How much time do parasites put into
networking? I bet it's more time than they put into starting a new business or
doing something.

------
whodahaa
What no one likes to admit is that the benefits of networking are highly
dependent on your demographic. Young white dude with excellent credentials?
Great! There are plenty of other white dudes who will hear you out. Older
lesbian Latina from an unknown school? Not so much.

Therefore, if you're more like the Latina and less like the young White dude
you should focus on technical ability more and networking less. That being
said, everyone should maintain their relationships at a minimum, for no amount
of technical excellence can defeat irrelevance.

People will definitely try to shush this blatant reality, but anyone who's not
White will definitely tell you for themselves. For what its worth, it's less
about being White and more about the fact that all of the incumbents in this
particular industry are White. For basketball you could easily replace "young
White" with "young Black"

~~~
dsfyu404ed
Being non-default makes someone more memorable. Over time people tend to
remember only the good so if you're already memorable for some other reason
you need to put less effort into networking.

If people already remember you for whatever reason (like being the old
lesbian) then you have to work less hard advertising your value compared to
someone else who's not so inherently memorable.

