Networking in California

I wrote this article in 2011, but the sentiments and considerations are still relevant today. Enjoy.

I was having lunch with a friend a few weeks ago. Beautiful sunny day in downtown Palo Alto. Pad Thai at Siam Royal. We were discussing our MBA experiences. I earned mine in May 2010, exactly 10 years after the law degree. He was in the process of earning his. Mind you, different schools (though each highly regarded), different programs (in my case, part-time; in his, executive). 

One of the main reasons to invest in an MBA is the “network.” As with anything, metrics are critical. That is, how can you tell if your network is good? Bad? Indifferent? Is it quantity of connections, quality, some amorphous combination of both? What’s the point of a network? Is it to enhance your chances of getting a new job or promotion, or more generally, to make you more effective. (In my view, the latter). Obviously, it’s impossible to be an expert in everything, and inasmuch as you can leverage your network, presumably you can be more effective. 

During my first year in business school, one of the core courses was Leadership, taught by a visiting professor from another top program. Whether or not leadership can be taught notwithstanding, it was one of my favorite classes. At the risk of oversimplifying, the take-away from the course was that leadership, or the ability to lead effectively, is highly dependent on the network. Put otherwise, networks can explain results. Case in point, consider, as we did, the networks of Paul Revere and William Dawes, as recounted in Gladwell’s “Tipping Point” (http://www.gladwell.com/tippingpoint/index.html). In contrast to Dawes, Revere was a super connector, actively involved in a number of organizations. Revere was highly effective in proliferating the message and rousing the countryside; Dawes, not so. Or, as a corollary, consider Milgram’s experiment in the late 1960s’, which helped spawn the “six degrees of separation” theory. In the experiment, notably many of the packages were transmitted through certain super connectors.  Add Ferrazzi’s “Never Eat Alone” (http://www.keithferrazzi.com/products/never-eat-alone/) (read in connection with a different class [Power & Politics]) to the mix, and you begin to get the picture. (Put simply, be the super connector, or find one!) Consider the effectiveness of Lyndon Johnson (see Caro’s, “The Path to Power”), in view of his network. Consider Johnson’s prodigious letter writing campaigns, early in his career, to virtually everyone in his district with a pulse. 

Back to lunch. Here are some further questions to consider. Are the relationships developed at one top program, all things being equal, necessarily stronger than those developed at another top program? If so, it would have to be due to some structural differences between the programs or due to differences in the respective students. Regarding the latter, many (if not most) will be Type A, driven, smart, etc. So, it can only be the former. 

Will the network developed during a part-time or executive program be necessarily weaker than one developed during a full-time program? Is the key shared experiences, regardless of type of program? (Yes!) Is it ever too late to develop a meaningful network? Put otherwise, in my case in the late 1990s I was in law school, while the real action was in Internet high-flyers, and the relationships forged in those companies help explain, to a significant extent, the topography of today’s Silicon Valley. 

While no networking maven, I can say with confidence that, while axiomatic, networking is what you make of it. The opportunities are there. It’s about learning and interacting, and if it begins to feel like work (or if you’re looking for an immediate (or even near term) ROI), take a step back (and enjoy a beverage). At the end of the day, altruism notwithstanding (and the operative concept is usually reciprocity, not altruism), whether or not anything gets done (through the network, or otherwise) is about mutually aligned incentives. That is, in many instances a network is necessary, but not sufficient. Comments welcomed.