Hacker News Reader

Comment by ghaff | Hacker News Reader

Networking isn't necessarily and generally shouldn't be about formal NETWORKING events and doing "delicate social/power games" as you put it. You just work with people, talk to them at conferences, join activity groups that you're interested in, etc. Every job I've had since grad school (admittedly not a lot) has come through people I've known professionally in some capacity.

View on HN

This, in fact I suspect that these in person power networking events are (no offense to those who participate) a market for lemons, in the sense that only people in need of a job/career change/etc are going to them. People who already have a jobs and networks, at least among those I know, wouldn’t go to these events. Maybe they would if they were hiring, but probably they’d be more likely to go to a job fair than a more open ended networking event, since the hit rate would be higher.

Former bosses and coworkers, friends from college, etc are great additions to my network. I was never going out of my way “to network” with them, they’re connections I built from going out in the world and doing stuff. Random people on LinkedIn or who I met once and exchanged GitHubs or LinkedIn with, unless they were actively trying to hire people, have never been valuable IME, despite them being actively “networking.”

Not even networking events per se, but I've been at many local cheap/free conferences because I was interested in some of the topics, was speaking, etc. And, especially if the industry was in a bit of the doldrums at the time, you'd have a ton of people intent on exchanging LinkedIns or trading business cards and fairly obviously solely there to try to get a lead to a job somewhere.

As a counter point, only 1 of the 5 tech jobs in my career have come through a connection. It can be done, and in the long run I think it's better for personal and professional growth to get opportunities that way. Not to mention that every time you get an opportunity through a connection, you're potentially screwing over someone else more qualified, without a connection.

I think the key point here is that there is "networking" as in making friends with people you spend meaningful time with vs "Networking" in the sense of going to parties or meetups in hopes of shaking hands with and BSing with someone for 5 minutes and linking in with them- and this seems to be the type that most push.

Most of the important networking happens naturally and is never a forced thing. I worked with a group about 20 years ago now, doing some stuff that was groundbreaking and we all still keep in touch and will absolutely vouch for one another and get each other jobs if we need to, but not once did I ever think about my time with them as networking. Same with some other jobs as well. But that DBA guy on another team that I was constantly having to pull teeth with to get any work out of that sent me a linkedin request? Its probably better for him that I forget his name and give him a second chance then remember how mediocre I felt he was.

I have been to conferences, and spoken at my share of them, and there are always "Networking" events around these, and even when I was actively hiring and looking around the room- with something to offer!- none of these resulted in any meaningful or long lasting relationships.

Yes, having a network is important. But the way to build it is to earn the trust, respect, and friendship of those around you. I mean I guess you can push this along a bit by going to happy hour and trying to bond a bit, but networking to me is 95% an organic thing and not something you should force, especially in tech.

I guess a caveat to that is that some people have to- and should- work to be generally likable. I have known some very smart people I would really prefer to never have to work with again.

>I guess a caveat to that is that some people have to- and should- work to be generally likable. I have known some very smart people I would really prefer to never have to work with again.

I think you hit on something here. When someone is viewed as generally unlikable, excluding them is contagious. No matter how hard they work at it, it will always be socially easy and acceptable by the in-group to exclude them. There is relatively no pressure on the in-group to work at being more accepting towards "unlikable" people, like there is for those people to "work to be likable." People are extremely unforgiving in social interactions.

"you're potentially taking X outta more-qualified Y's hands"

Why is this limitation mindset present in some people and not others? I understand quite fully that there is a difference in mindset between growth/limitation but... you're not "Taking a job" if they're more qualified and better-suited, the employer can hire them instead of you, but they didn't. It's not a zero sum world.

I've been part of different hiring processes long enough to see just how many people get hired because they know somebody on the team, when there were other candidates who were as qualified or more qualified. When we can hire 1 person, my experience is that it is 1000% biased towards knowing somebody. Sure, if there is an undefined number of open reqs, you can argue that there is still space for the more qualified, unconnected applicants. But when you're dealing with a finite number of open reqs, there's actually not, and it is a zero sum game.

Well, pretty much most people know that interviews aren't a great way to assess signal--certainly at the margins. So as long as someone seems qualified, a team member who has actually worked with them in some capacity who vouches for them tilts the scales quite a bit.

Yep, and if you've ever worked with someone who is a "dud" but leveraged their connections to get the position, you'll know how frustrating it is to realize you're competing with this outsized advantage.

"Knows someone" means that the someone they know liked them enough to recommend them. Hiring an unknown person with more skills is taking a gamble on personality?

Still, why constrain yourself to strict meritocracy when you can instead get ahead with some social tricks? If you're not cheating, you're not trying.

How are you defining this? You made cold outreach to the companies for job postings you saw adverts for?

I ask because if recruiters were involved they are often power networkers that will unashamedly ask the people you know, "who do you know that would be good for this job."

My cofounder got two jobs because after they rejected me I told the agent they should hire him instead and they did.

Entirely this.

"Networking" has been indispensable in every aspect of my career. I hate the term "networking", though, because it implies it's some kind of special activity. It's not. It just means maintaining professional relationships. You "network" every day when you're working with your teammates, for instance.

Networking events are, in my experience, a pointless waste of time.

OP started out talking about plumbers; if you want to meet plumbers (or their friends) at networking events, you're going to have to start attending builder's conferences.

And even if you do that, the people you're likely to meet will be businessmen, not tradesmen. Tradesmen work, and when they're not working, they're either getting training or they're on holiday. They don't do "events".

Reply on news.ycombinator.com