|
|
|
|
|
|
by seem_2211
2694 days ago
|
|
|
This article makes very little sense. It disparages "networking", and then goes on to give all of these examples of successful networking. Successful networking isn't about trying to get everyones details, or trying to pump your brand at every opportunity possible - rather it's about working out where you can add value to others. Silicon Valley is built on networking - the referral paths that lead to talent, capital, opportunities - it's all invite only. That's by design. Platforms won't solve this. I'm in recruiting, where we're supposedly always about to be disrupted. But the platforms don't solve the two big recruitment problems - 1: you don't need more candidates, you just need a few very good ones and 2: people who have good opportunities don't broadly see the value in setting themselves up on platforms to "just look". But a lot of unqualified tyre kickers do. |
|
|
I think the point is that "shallow networking" is useless. Simply because I have your business card (or we're connected on LinkedIn), does not mean that I am in your "network", or vice versa.
I think I have quite an extensive "network" (people with whom I meet regularly and who are willing to help with introductions/events/etc).
That has taken a number of years to grow, and most of those relationships started because I helped them out with something, with no expectation of return. In other words, I actually was in a position to help, and I actually delivered.
There's a lot of compounding/snowballing too - every person you help usually introduces you to two or three others over the course of the relationship. It's not even a "you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours" - I'm genuinely interested in helping out anyone I can.