Did you know that the addresses in your mail box can actually predict your career prospects. The more dappled your address list, the more wide-ranging your career graph will be. This has broadly been the finding of a recent study conducted by Prof Adam Kleinbaum, an assistant professor of Business Administration at Tuck School of Business at Dartmouth.
And Prof Kleinbaum discovered this after studying lakhs of email headers of some 30,000 employees of a company at two different periods in 2006 and 2008. He studied how communication changed over time, which led to a change in connections and thus a change in career prospects.
Prof Kleinbaum spoke to PaGaLGuY
Tell us something about the study’s initial days?
The study was conducted at a large, well-known U.S.-based information technology firm that I call "BigCo". The subjects of the study were about 30,000 employees of the firm, a significant chunk of its US employee population. The data collection took nearly two years to complete and the analysis has been ongoing for the past four years. This particular study examined how a person’s social network evolves over the course of her career, but was part of a larger initiative to understand the role that informal social interactions play within large organisations.
What were the most expected findings?
The most expected finding was that within large organisations, people with static careers generally have less advantageous networks than people who have experienced mobility within the company. In the paper, I analyse the networks and career histories of tens of thousands of employees, but to pull out a single example, I describe "Kellie," a consultant with the job title of IT Specialist. Kellie worked in a medium-sized office in a Louisiana city, where a few hundred other employees were based. During the seven years of career history, Kellie stayed in the same job, in the same office and was not promoted. Correspondingly, Kellie’s network was relatively focused: all of her contacts are in her own job function and nearly all are in her own business unit. She has some contacts in other offices, but nearly all are in her home state. Quantitatively, Kellie’s network is less advantageous than 94% of BigCo employees.
In contrast, "Bill" held a position similar to Kellie’s at the start of my observation, but then he moved. His first move was into the Software business unit, where he continued to serve as a consultant. Next, he became a technical sales specialist for the software unit. This was a natural transition, given the expertise Bill had developed in earlier roles, and one with ample precedent at BigCo. Compared with Kellie, Bill has a larger, broader, more diverse network.
And what were the most startling findings?
The most starting finding was that among the people who have had dynamic, mobile careers, the particular pattern of mobility matters a great deal. People who have moved along well-trodden career paths have networks that are moderately advantageous. But the people with the most advantageous networks are people whose career histories have been atypical for the organisation. Take "Sheryl," for example. At the start of my observation period, Sheryl had much in common with Kellie and Bill. But two years later, she was promoted to the executive ranks into an administrative role in the IT consulting unit. A year later, she moved into a marketing role. After three more years, she took an assignment in the manufacturing function of the corporate supply chain group, working in the corporate headquarters. A sequence of transitions like Sheryl’s is highly unusual at BigCo : fewer than 7% of people have careers as atypical as hers. And correspondingly, Sheryl’s network is significantly broader and more far-reaching than that of either Kellie or Bill.
But companies also have ‘silent workers who believe that work tells?
I think that for certain types of work or certain types of job, the quality of one’s work is driven to a significant degree by the quality of one’s network. Take, for example, creative problem-solving. One might argue that creativity is the act of the lone genius. But it turns out that lone genius is the exception, not the rule. Research shows that far more often, creativity results not from thinking hard, but from interaction with a diverse range of different people whose different backgrounds lead them to approach a problem in different ways. People whose networks bring them into contact with such a diversity of perspectives are far more likely to have good ideas than people who interact primarily with those in their own work group.
Are woman as efficient at networking? There is a concern about reputation?
Yes, there is little doubt that men and women have different patterns of interaction. In another project from this paper, I show that women actually interact more broadly, and with a larger set of people than men do, at least within BigCo’s U.S. employee population. Of course, the more important question is why do these patterns occur. Further research is needed to really understand gender differences in network. In terms of societal perceptions, the research on gender teaches us that people do perceive powerful, agentic men more favourably than powerful, agentic women. Unfortunately, we still have a long way to go before both genders have equal opportunities in the workplace.
Does the info work well for non-American employees and countries?
We don’t know whether the finding that atypical careers yield network benefits holds outside the U.S., but I would be willing to hazard some speculation. My guess would be that the more a national culture values conformity, maintaining appearances and saving face, the less likely it is that this result would hold. Independent of national culture, I think the results would be more likely to hold the more opportunities there are for value-creating collaboration between the business units of an enterprise.
There is a thin line between networking and keeping contacts for personal benefit?
The question of how individuals’ interests diverge from the interests of their organisations is a very interesting one in a broad range of domains. It certainly is interesting in terms of networking as well. Within large organisations, I think most of the time people both build and use their networks in ways that benefit their jobs. In this sense, their own interests are well-aligned with the interests of the company.
Is networking taught?
Yes, networking can definitely be taught. I think it begins with a willingness to view one’s social capital – that is, the set of resources that we have access to through our relationships with others – as an asset that is worthy of investment. I teach it at Tuck.
Does networking also mean basically keeping the right contacts to be used at the right time?
I think effective networking means building strong and meaningful relationships with a broad and diverse set of contacts. Different people can provide different kinds of benefits. Colleagues in another department in your organisation may provide a novel perspective or useful political information. Classmates at business school can provide insights into what a job in a particular industry might be like. Former bosses might provide opportunities for future advancement. There is benefit in maintaining a broad and diverse network. Of course, sometimes decisions have to be made about how or when to "call in" a favor from a contact. In these situations, the best approach is to think through both costs and benefits as well as the effect that the request will have on the relationship. It’s counter-intuitive, but sometimes asking for a favor can actually strengthen a relationship by making the other person feel more invested in your success.
What about those who have not managed to network for most of their corporate life
It’s never too late to start! Of course, there is great value in long-standing relationship. Part of the value lies in the fact that it’s much easier to befriend big, important people before they become big and important – I think this is especially important advice for current or prospective MBA students. But for those who have not managed to do much networking, I think the way to begin is to view your network as a resource that you use to create economic value and which is therefore worth investing in. Viewed this way, networking may seem more like an essential tool for success than an uncomfortable activity to be endured.
