Networking’s Most Effective Decree is the Second Degree

You approach a networking event and at the door a gentleman stands and ask you, “first or second degree”.

You are not sure you know what he is asking so you ask him to clarify.

He explains there are two rooms for networking. One is all about first-degree networking and is full of 100 people who are only interested in connecting with the other people in the room. In the other room contains 20 people who are interested in who they know and who you know who might be of aid to one another.

My 12 years of hosting and attending networking events have taught me that a vast majority of people will pick the room with more people and are specifically drawn to a method of first-degree networking.

First-degree networking or direct networking is about what two people can do for one or both parties.

It is my assertion that:

First-degree networking is flawed and excessively so. It is a hyper-inefficient use of time and resources.

Now before you write me off with the logic of going with the crowd or the need focus on direct goals and hence first-degree contacts that are actionable, here me out.

The reality is your best potential result from the 100 people in the first-degree room is 20 qualified potential contacts and that will require working the room like a speed-dater on 5 cups of coffee. While 20 people in the second-degree networking room will yield a conservative 100 qualified potential contacts achieved at a reasonable pace.

“Doubt me you do . . .” — Yoda

Well, I have included all my figures and theories at the bottom of this post for those looking for verification, but read on.

Unfortunately, we are programmed to hunt for our next meal and we are naturally, when pressed, more focused on working hard and fast rather than hard, fast and smart.

When it comes to finding another few clients or someone new to date, a “good enough” direct approach gets the job done. However, most of the time “good enough” networking is simply not effective when more than the next job or next “significant other” is required. Further, the wasted effort to achieve good enough could have produced 2.5 to 5 times more results.

As the numbers show in the example that I show below, for the first-degree method to equal the potential in the second-degree room, you would need to find a room with 100 people who were all potential targets and lock down all of them in 90 seconds or less per person.

The reality is large networking events work against you.

Large networking events reduce the time you have to connect with each person to an ineffective time frame. Pushing you into the ugly, “what do you do, this is what I do conversation.”

Even if you can ignore the sinking feeling that you are missing a key person and spend more time with some individuals the nature of first-degree networking limits your potential results.

Often the environment (i.e. loud bars, places lacking enough seating or the ability to move and connect with everyone at a relaxed pace) and number of people at larger networking events prevents someone from trying second-degree techniques. The people you are talking to feel the pressure to hunt for their next target and hence will not easily engage in second-degree conversations. Even if your method is to gather as many cards as you can and circle back with each person the lack of established trust reduces these follow-up contacts to a pitch and be pitched format. The reality is that of 100 business cards you might gather, your chance of getting more than a few more minutes of phone time let alone something more meaningful is doubtful.

To leverage the potential of second-degree contacts some connection and trust must be built up and this requires more time and a better environment to achieve. This is why while it is not unreasonable to assume that 10% of a person’s contacts might be of aid no one will mention let alone turn over those connections without building more trust.

In conclusion, while I have attempted to be overly fair in my evaluation there is no doubt that while the path and results of first-degree networking are clear and enticing the results are more than disappointing. Even if I cut in half the second-degree rooms potential result from 100 to 50 qualified potential contacts compared to 20 qualified potential contacts (which you would have to be very good to capture) from the first-degree room, the result is still 2.5 times better with second-degree networking room for the same period of time.

So consider, even if your current first-degree networking is getting the job done you are leaving tons of potential untapped and working multiple harder than you have to.

The theoretical facts and assumptions:

A) There are 100 people in the first-degree room and only 20 in the second degree room.
B) In either room, there are only 20% of people who fit the targeted need and are assumed to be of value.
C) You have 2.5 hours in the room you choose and for simplicity, everyone is there for the full 2.5 hours.
D) In the second-degree room, it is assumed that 50% of the people know people of value to you.

In the room with 100 first-degree networkers, in order to talk to each person you have a maximum of 90 seconds per person however if you want to save more time to connect with the 20 people (20% of 100) that are of value, you need to save time for that.

If we allow 3.5 minutes per each of the 20 key people this leaves you with just 60 seconds per person to figure out if they are a one of the key 20 and hence worth 2.5 more minutes.

Successfully executed you might come out with all 20 potential leads who hopefully you managed in 3.5 minutes to move to a point that you can convert them to another longer connection.

Honestly, a tall order and one that only some of the best might pull off. Obviously, you can spend more time with people by accident or misjudgement and hence miss part of the crowd and reduce your 20 possible connections to 10 to 15.

Looking at the other room, however, let’s see what might be possible.

Out of the 20 people in this room, there are only four possible first-degree valuable contacts (who will not include in our count). You have 7.5 minutes to spend with each person if you divide your time equally.

However, as these people were all open to a conversation beyond themselves, you have 7.5 minutes to see if they know anyone who might be of aid to you. If we allow a bit more time for each first-degree contact of value or person who feels they might know someone of aid to us (assumed to be 50% of the room) we could allow 10 minutes per person with direct or secondary aid to offer and 5 minutes for everyone else.

Now according to Linkedin in 2016 the average CEO had 930 connections however 28% of users have less than 300 users (which does not speak to how many people they know in reality since not all one’s friends and contact are on Linkedin).

Going with a safe 100 people in each person’s network, the 10 people in the room who are able/willing to be of help know 1,000 people (10 x 100). We will use 10% or half of the 20% assumption from the first-degree room (just to remove any doubt of favoritism in my argument) that any given crowd is a potentially valuable contact. This yields 100-second-degree contacts (10% of 100) that our 10 fellow networkers could be able to give us information for or who they might be willing, with the establishment of a connection and trust, to provide an introduction.

This produces a result of 100-second degree connections from 10 people which is a conservative result at best since most people know far more than 100 people.