Comments on: CNBC Sourpuss disses ‘networking’

By: Rotkapchen

Rotkapchen — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 21:52:59 +0000

The relevant operative here is "meaningful networking".

By: Joe McKendrick

Joe McKendrick — Sat, 28 Mar 2009 15:32:14 +0000

Great points, thank you. "Virtual gin joint" — I love it! I agree that you need common interests — that's what it's all about. But I think there's also something that can be said for the value of serendipity. To some degree, digital media and communications has removed opportunities for accidental discovery — such as bumping into someone in the hallway, and finding out that such-and-such a department is doing such-and-such a project. The social networks, to some degree, attempt to replace that serendipity with a wider range of opportunities for "chance encounters." So while many of us may be joining networks with little intention for deeper involvement, we often don't know what could evolve from these in the future.

By: Daniel Tunkelang

Daniel Tunkelang — Sat, 28 Mar 2009 04:17:59 +0000

I think you and Mason a're saying almost the same thing in different ways.

Mason criticizes “Introducing yourself to as many random people as possible" because clearly such "networking" is meaningless. You (and Godin) emphasize that networking should be about real connection. The implication, at least in my view, is that you should reach out to people if and when you have a real basis for connecting–something that makes the two of you more than just a random pair of human being that happen to be in the same virtual gin joint at the same time.

Of course, you have something in common, by all means you should connect. Cultivating relationships with the people with whom you share interests is what real networking is all about. Indeed, people who take this approach build valuable social networks, while people who fill up their virtual dance cards with meaningless connections quickly find that their "network" doesn't actually do anything for them.