The only successful networker was the bartender
Two talks from the recent TEDGlobal conference set the broader context of this topic perfectly. Both are highly recommended.
Ethan Zuckerman points out that even as the web makes our globe increasingly interconnected, most of us still source information and ideas from people who are just like us. (And he offers some suggestions and tools for how to change that.)
Matt Ridley demonstrates how, throughout history, the meeting and mating of ideas has massively accelerated productivity and innovation. As he puts it, more tantalizingly, this is what happens when ideas have sex.
Jonah Lehrer’s latest blog post, The Secret of Successful Entrepreneurs, brings this all into a modern business context.
In a 2007 study at Columbia University, executives were invited to a cocktail mixer and encouraged to network with new people. The vast majority of participants even declared that their primary goal was to meet “as many different as people as possible” and “expand their social network.” Not surprisingly, however, birds of a feather drank together. Investment bankers clustered with investment bankers, marketers with marketers, and so on. According to the researchers, “the only successful networker at the event was the bartender.”
To demonstrate the tangible benefits of a diverse social network, Lehrer cites a separate study by Princeton sociologist Martin Ruef. Interviewing over 700 Stanford Business School grads who had gone on to start their own business, Ruef noticed that most of these entrepreneurs had very homogenous networks—but a small subset had significantly expanded their circles.
“They didn’t just hang out with colleagues and close friends,” Lehrer writes. “Instead, [they] maintained a large number of ‘weak ties’ with people at different companies and from different backgrounds. Their social networks were varied and undirected, full of surprising interactions and ‘informational entropy.’ These entrepreneurs made a habit of hanging out with people who told them unexpected things; they chatted with acquaintances and struck up conversations with random strangers.”
Here’s where it gets really interesting. When Ruef analyzed the innovation levels of all the subjects (measured by patents and trademarks, with bonus points for entering an unexploited niche or pioneering new marketing methods), he found that those with wider networks were three times more innovative than their narrower peers.
By interacting with a wider range of contacts, they were exposed to a wider range of ideas and what Lehrer calls “non-redundant information.”
He concludes:
There is something unsettling about Ruef’s data. We think of entrepreneurs, after all, as individuals. If someone has a brilliant idea for a new company, we assume that they are inherently more creative than the rest of us. This is why we idolize people like Bill Gates and Richard Branson and Oprah Winfrey. It’s also why we invest in the meritocracy: We believe that we can identify talent in isolation.
But Ruef’s analysis suggests that this focus on the singular misses the real story of entrepreneurship. Unless we take our social circle into account – that collection of weak ties and remote acquaintances who feed us unfamiliar facts – we’re not going to really understand the nature of achievement. Behind every successful entrepreneur is a vast network.
If you don’t already have a “collection of weak ties and remote acquaintances” feeding you unfamiliar facts, you might want to think about cultivating one.
