One truth I’ve had to wrestle with in my twenties is that relationships matter a lot.
I used to believe (and also hoped) that the world I operated in - being based in the US - approximated a meritocracy. [1] That is, I believed success was primarily a function of competence.
Over time, I’ve learned this isn’t entirely accurate. Because while it’s true that competence is important, its mapping to success isn’t as tight as you’d think it would be if the world was in fact a pure meritocracy. Relationships are one reason this is true. [2]
The value of relationships varies by industry, organization, and role, but in nearly all circumstances relationships have at least some (if not a very large) influence on professional outcomes. [3] Securing interviews. Gaining promotions. Accessing private investments. Relationships really do matter.
There’s a discussion to be had on whether this kind of a world - one where relationships have great influence - is bad. There’s another discussion to be had on how someone (particularly an ambitious person) should operate in the world given this reality. This essay explores the latter.
Most people adopt one of two views. The first sees networking as a game that must be played. The thought process goes: Relationships are critical to professional success. While one might befriend another for professional gain, others do the same. As long as there’s benefit for both parties, there’s nothing wrong with this approach. In fact, to achieve success on the grandest scale, it’s a necessity.
The second view is one of rejection and seclusion. Those with this view see the “networking” game being played but want no part of it. Because even if mutual benefit exists, there’s no getting around that these relationships feel transactional. To save their conscience, they refuse participation; they avoid the networking events, office politicking, and LinkedIn virtue signaling altogether.
Of course, most people aren’t so black and white. In reality, these views represent two ends of a spectrum, and most people lie somewhere in between.
In my early twenties, I identified more with the second view (rejection and seclusion); I looked down on those engaging in what I thought was superficial behavior. [4] But at the time, I didn’t know how powerful networks could be. I didn’t realize relationships might be the basis on which job opportunities, promotions, and business deals were secured. I didn’t know hiring decisions might be made in a way where one’s connections could overshadow incompetence.
This revelation forced me to reevaluate my approach - both its rationale and its consequences. Obviously, to engage in what I viewed as distasteful behavior (view 1) was off limits. But to simply opt for the reclusive approach (view 2) would be hard to accept knowing the opportunity cost.
Over the past two years, a third view has emerged which I’ve become increasingly excited about. (In fact, you’re only able to read this essay because of my adopting this approach.) I call it the “Tribal” approach to networking.
Traditionally, networking is defined as building relationships for professional gain. But the Tribal approach reframes networking as finding people I’d be proud to include in my “Tribe”.
Finding tribesmen is different from building a professional network. With the former, shared values, long-term alignment, and trust are all critical factors. With the latter, none of these are required. (The only prerequisite for the latter is that some professional benefit exists.)
To feign interest in someone for professional gain is of no interest to me. But looking for potential tribesmen - people who I enjoy conversing with, learning from, and who have aligned long-term interests - is an easy approach to get behind.
The question is: How do I find these people?
Like most, I’m selective when it comes to new relationships. Unlike most, I’m a hyper-introvert. This makes for a bad combination for relationship building. Fortunately, the internet has changed what’s possible.
As of November 15th, the world population is more than eight billion. [5] With an estimated two-thirds of the world online (just over five billion people), even if only one in every 1,000 people made for a good tribesman that would imply a cohort of over 5,000 people. A huge number! [6]
The only way to find these people is if (1) they know I exist and (2) they know my ambitions, interests, and values. I have to send out bat signals.
My writing. My open-sourced learning. My other projects to (hopefully) come. In part, that is what this is. Bat signals. By sharing an authentic representation of myself, I hope to find fellow tribesmen in the process.
At twenty-six, I’m certain my views will continue to evolve. But for now, I find this tribal approach both respectable and exciting. As I’ve already built a few valuable relationships in recent years, my conviction in this approach has only grown.
Even as an introvert, I’ve learned that life can be much richer when done alongside others.
1// I always knew this wasn’t 100% accurate but I believed it to be close enough. This influenced my approach to school and work: prioritizing grades and quality output above all else. It’s also why, over time, entrepreneurship piqued my interest. It’s much closer to a meritocracy than, say, high finance.
2// Seniority (tenure/status), visibility (exposure of your work), and prejudice are other reasons this might be true.
3// I’d imagine relationships matter much more in politics than in software.
4// I used to think leveraging relationships was a weak move. To me, doing it the “right” way meant finding success solely on merit. I see things a bit differently now.
5// Source: NYT article
6// Dunbar’s Number suggests one can maintain no more than 150 relationships.
