Being Concise and Interesting During An Interview, or A Networking Event

Source: www.agilitypr.com

Professor Craig Wortmann recently shared some terrific advice in a Kellogg Insights column titled, "How to Talk About What You Do (without Being Boring)."   Wortmann explains two key mistakes that people make either during job interviews or at networking events.  Put simply, many individuals either share too little or too much. Imagine someone asks, "What do you do?"  One person might simply state their occupation (banker, lawyer, professor, doctor, etc.).  Another might offer a lengthy treatise that puts others to sleep.  Both mistakes are commonplace and easily avoidable.  

Wortmann recommends responding to the question in a manner that sparks a lively dialogue.  Provide a concise answer that leaves them wanting more... more information about the work, about the people you serve, about your particular expertise, etc.  Find a way to spark their interest and their curiosity.   If you think you have been concise enough, think again.  Most of us overestimate how tight (and interesting) our responses actually are.  

I would add that it's generally helpful to demonstrate interest in the other party as well.  Be curious as to what they do, what motivates them, and why they are passionate about their work.  In short, don't just make it about you.   Ask questions, rather than just talking at the other person.   A good interview typically involves the interviewee offering some thoughtful, non-typical inquiries that demonstrate strong interest in the role, as well as a true desire to assess the fit.   In a networking event, great questions often make the conversation proceed much more smoothly, and you will learn so much more about the other person through these inquiries.  

Optimal Networks for Women & Men

Source: Wikimedia

Yang Yang, Nitesh Chawla, and Brian Uzzi have published a fascinating new article titled, "A network’s gender composition and communication pattern predict women’s leadership success."   The scholars examined the differences in social  networks of recent graduates from a top MBA program.  They sought to understand how network composition might affect the career opportunities and progression of these young graduates.  Yang, Chawla, and Uzzi discovered an important gender difference.  Kellogg Insight recently wrote an article about this research.  Here is an excerpt from that article describing the key findings from this study:  

They found an important gender difference: for men, the most significant factor affecting job status after graduation was how “central” they were in their networks—that is, how many highly connected people they have relationships with.  Successful women also tended to be more central, but that alone was not enough to land them a top job. The most successful women often had a tight-knit circle of female colleagues as well.

The reason for this difference may come down to the types of information that men versus women need to succeed. Presumably, having numerous connections provides ready access to what the researchers call “public information,” such as which companies are hiring and which types of candidates they’re seeking. For men, that alone may be enough to land a good job. “Men really need a network that’s going to maximize their access and exposure to market information,” says study coauthor Brian Uzzi, a professor of management and organizations at Kellogg.

Women, however, “need the same thing men need and one thing more,” Uzzi says. Specifically, women need “private information,” which may include insider tips about a company’s leadership culture and politics, or hints about how to make an impression in a male-dominated industry, for example.  However, women are only likely to put faith in such private information when it comes from trusted contacts with whom they have established relationships. Furthermore, only fellow women can provide the sensitive, gender-specific information that will be useful in a career context—hence the benefit of having connections who are both close and are women.

But there is a caveat, the researchers warn: if the contacts in a woman’s network do not have sufficiently diverse networks of their own, she may find herself in an echo chamber, hurting her chances of success.

Networking Inside & Outside the Firm to Drive Innovation

Linus Dahlander, Siobhan O’Mahony, and David Gann have conducted a fascinating new study regarding researchers at IBM.   They studied more than 600 technical experts at IBM, people responsible for many of the firm's patents.  They paid attention to how these experts networked with others both inside and outside the firm.  In an HBR digital article, the scholars summarize their findings:  

We measured the breadth of each person’s external social network by the different types of external sources they interacted with. Then we assessed how the breadth of each person’s external network was associated with subsequent innovation outcomes at IBM, like the quantity and quality of the patents the individual produced.

Surprisingly, we found that our respondents’ most common sources of inspiration for new ideas were their colleagues inside, rather than outside, the firm. In contrast with current theories of open innovation, people with broader external networks were no more innovative than people with narrow external networks. Many of the experts relied mostly on internal networks and were still innovative. To better understand this puzzle, we examined how people allocated their time among their information sources inside and outside IBM.

We discovered that experts with a broad external network were more innovative only when they devoted enough time and attention to those sources... This is an important finding, as many managers are keen on the idea that networking and forming external ties can boost the flow of ideas that spurs innovation. What we found is, for that to happen, employees need to devote significant time and attention to creating and sustaining their external relationships. In some cases, people who focused on learning from colleagues inside the organization were just as innovative.

About 30% of the respondents who had a broad external network did not allocate enough time to learn from those relationships. These people would have been better off deepening relationships with their colleagues inside the firm. For spending time inside the company is also important to understanding the firm’s innovation needs and knowing how to develop and execute on innovative ideas.

In sum, the best innovators engage in a balance of external and internal networking.  They scour the outside world for ideas, but they do so given a solid understanding of what's happening within their firm.  Moreover, they engage with people in sufficient depth so as to truly learn from them, rather than simply gaining a superficial understanding of the trends and developments in the outside world.  You can't simply have coffee with a hundred people in search of the next big idea. You have to immerse yourself in certain contexts, whether they be internal or external.   Learning takes time, as does relationship building.   

How to Network Effectively

We all know that having tons of LinkedIn connections does not make you an effective networker.  The quantity of connections does not serve as the primary driver of networking efficacy.  The nature of those connections matters.  Researchers have compared two types of networkers for years.  First, there are those that engage intensely in a closed network.  They connect with others who share similar knowledge, expertise, and experience.  In short, they stick to their silo.  They aim to deepen their expertise in a particular field.  Second, there are the brokers.  These people are good at bridging among pools of people with different expertise.  They help connect people in different closed networks.   Brokers are incredibly important.  

Who is the more effective networker - the person who builds connections with others to deepen their expertise in a particular area or the broker who bridges multiple silos?  Ronald S. Burt and Jennifer Merluzzi have discovered that "network oscillation" actually proves to be the most effective networking strategy.  They studied 350 investment bankers at one particular financial services firm, and they tracked them over four years.  Here's an excerpt from a University of Chicago story about their research:  

The short answer: the most-successful people take advantage of both systems—sometimes they broker, and other times they dive into closed networks. In fact, without this movement back and forth, their networks give them no advantage at all... Analyzing salary and bonus packages as well as year-end performance surveys proved revealing for Burt and Merluzzi. Bankers who were able to move between brokering and working in closed networks during the year reaped the greatest rewards. These individuals formed ties across the organization, gaining access to new projects and opportunities. But once they found an opportunity, they quit brokering and engaged deeply in their new project. When that project ended, they once again tapped into their broad network of contacts at the firm to find the next interesting project. Swinging between working intensely on a project and networking more widely did have a cost: these bankers sometimes saw their reputations suffer while they were on the bench. But the hit was temporary. And the compensation data show that these oscillating bankers made the most money over time.

Funny: Networking or a Date?

Source:  Fast Company

Networking Leads to Job Growth?

Michael Mandel, president of South Mountain Economics and former chief economist at BusinessWeek, has conducted an interesting new study about job growth.   Using data from LinkedIn, he found that, "the most connected metro regions had more than double the job growth of the least-connected metro areas.” Does that mean networking leads to more economic activity and more jobs?  Not necessarily.   Correlation does not equal causation.  Perhaps, a high growth economy in a region causes professionals to connect with one another more often. The chart to the left summarizes Mandel's findings.