Some of the people that know me well will know that I absolutely hate networking, it is an activity which I will avoid if at all possible. Back in January I even avoided going to a conference that looked really interesting because the timetable included a few periods of networking which I would have struggled to avoid. Well that and it would have cost me $20 and was in Auckland.
There are multiple reasons why I dislike networking, but I think I will share one or two with you all.
I simply find the whole process of networking awkward and somewhat troubling, firstly it starts with some random person coming up to me and saying hello. Considering I don’t really like talking to people this instantly puts me on edge, that also why you will very rarely see me going up and saying hello to stranger.
But then the experience gets so much worse, it almost instantly descends into what you do and more horrifically what you can do for me. Which is supposed to be the power of the process, it gets people to the heart of what ever collaborations they are able to do currently or could potentially do in the future.
But this is not something I am comfortable with, I am not used to viewing the people around me as an object to further my own desires and I really do not like people viewing me in that way. In fact I have a history of actively sabotaging networking opportunities just so that what ever person is trying to network with me will think I’m a waste of time and go talk to someone else.
I would like to think that I engage with people on a more humanistic level than the materialistic networking level but I suspect that it would be more accurate to describe me not engaging with people at all.
The thing is it seems to me that I’m expected to network more and more and I simply can not bring myself to do it properly. It just seems to me that it is the product of a sick society that actively makes people objects to enrich others. Every time I see someone get excited when they think I might be worth something to them or disappointed when I convince them that I am not I can’t help but thinking that this person has been socialised to have a completely perverted view of humanity.
So networking reminds me that the world is terrible, and that people are unnecessarily cruel to each other. That some people will use any tools to hand to use a person to satisfy their own desires. Of course this doesn’t just apply to business relationships, so many people seem to decide they want something from someone else and will lie, bribe, manipulate, coerce and cheat to get what they want, be it sex, money, love, friendship, prestige, titles or any of the myriad other things that people value.
But can we really blame these people for treating people like shit when treating people like shit is placed at the centre of our economic system and our economic system is becoming an increasingly dominant part of our life. Almost from day one we are competing, the people around us are at first obstacles to and later tools for our ego.
So in short I hate networking because it reminds me that the world is full of cruel ego driven fuck heads and that their behaviour is rewarded by society. And also because it involves talking to strangers.
Joel said,
April 10, 2012 at 17:28
Oh Nick Nick Nick! I love the interesting and genuine way you engage with people. That’s my main point of disagreement.
The other is not really disagreement at all – it’s just to observe that I sometimes drop in on networking-type things to meet interesting people on a non-opportunistic basis. That’s probably misusing networking events but it is a nice gentle form of protest…a bit like what you say you have done, except that it doesn’t involve actively dissapointing people. Although I think I’ll try that when people aren’t prepared to see me as something other than an end!
auginhamilton said,
April 10, 2012 at 22:14
Cheers I do tend to be a bit pessimistic, particularly when it comes to my own qualities.
I actualy agree that there are people like yourself who are just there to meet interestng people, but I find it very hard to convince my brain of that fact at the time. This whole article is really more describing my perception during these events rather than the reality of networking. But I would like to think that my perceptions are somewhat based on reality.
auginhamilton said,
April 10, 2012 at 22:15
Also does this mean you have caught up with my blog?
Reg Mojoille said,
April 11, 2012 at 10:40
No…I’m working at it in reverse!
Yeah, fair enough about the perceptions bit. I suspect you’re largely correct in your observations.
Cathy Legg said,
April 15, 2012 at 19:36
But, as Aristotle said – the human being is the political animal!
The argument above seems to me to be analogous to the following: “As far as I can see, legs are used to gain an advantage over creatures that don’t have any legs. Legs suck! They’re evil. I wish I didn’t have any.”
Where am I going wrong?
Reg Mojoille said,
April 15, 2012 at 21:05
For one thing, legs (I’m so tempted to spell it ‘Leggs’, but I won’t) don’t use other creatures. Networking as it’s portrayed here treats people as a means to further oneself – an instrumental use. Having *legs* is more useful than not, and does not really rely on other creatures not having them for ours to be worthwhile.
You might suggest that networking is not fully instrumental/ego-driven as people are there, cogniscantly, ‘to be used’ and hopefully find some mutual benefit. More likely, though, it’s a shrewdness* of individuals largely there to further their own interests (to use, rather than be used) without worrying so much about ‘give and take’. At least, in the type of networking Mr Aug is avoiding.
Legs seem less prone to this instrumental criticism. And that’s my passive/active explanation.
*(collective noun for apes)
Cathy Legg said,
April 18, 2012 at 21:13
“Having *legs* is more useful than not, and does not really rely on other creatures not having them for ours to be worthwhile…”
Au contraire! The creatures with legs run around with axes and chop down the creatures without legs to build houses with and such, because the creatures without legs can’t run away!
You might say I’m mounting a broadly Nietzschean challenge to Nick’s arguments, though I’m not a Nietzsche scholar. But I have read “Thus Spake Zarathustra”
Cathy Legg said,
April 19, 2012 at 12:48
p.s. Forgot to say – Reg, it is very nice to make your acquaintance! And what an exotic surname you have, is it Italian?
auginhamilton said,
April 19, 2012 at 00:17
I think your analagy is slightly wrong, in networking both participants are able to use/exploit each other for their own benefit. So I think a better analogy would be a situation where everyone has legs, but people are going around trying to stand on other people shoulders to try and reach whatever’s on the top shelf.
And my argument isn’t that networking is evil, it is that I don’t like it. ie. I’m happy for people to let others stand on them, but I don’t want anybody standing on me nor will I stand on anybody else.
Reg Mojoille said,
April 19, 2012 at 18:15
Spanish. It’s pronounced ‘moyle’ (so I claim, anyway).
Reg Mojoille said,
April 20, 2012 at 21:46
I think Mr Aug is right in that the point has shifted somewhat in the preceding analogy. Nonetheless it does seem to lessen the broad observation that networking characterises a world of cruel ego driven fuck heads whose behaviour is rewarded by society. Furthermore I think my point is also not fatally weakened as we can exploit other creatures *with* legs perfectly well, thank you very much. If there were no stationary animate objects legs would still be useful; or, to put it another another way, our legs would be useful whether or not we exploited trees. There is not a *reliance* on other creatures not having them.
In short there seems a relevant and frequently occuring, if not entirely necessary, difference between the advantages legs give and the advantages sought from networking.
I applaude your literary achievments. I am yet to read Mein Kampf.
Reg Mojoille said,
April 20, 2012 at 21:51
In fact that was not very clear. The main point should be that legs are not solely a tool for exploitation. They perform other useful functions, such as allowing us to travel to and communicate with people in other areas, for example, or escape floods.
Reg Mojoille said,
April 20, 2012 at 22:05
Hell. In fact the main point should be that legs are likely to be less exploitative than networking. As such isolated counterexamples need to demonstrate some sort of near-universal quantification.
At this point I question the quantitative difference between networking and leg-evolving that I am trying to establish, as much as I question the lack of difference that the tree example shows. Stalemate?