Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I cannot agree with you, especially the last sentence. Today, it's more crucial than ever to have highly-competent people in place.
I think people who compare networking to cronyism are just indulging in sour grapes. It's the equivalent of the person who is constantly passed over for promotion at a company and blames 'office politics' as the reason. That person never bothers to scrutinize their own performance on the job.
Whom out there, who is serious about having a job, is not "highly" competent? What is your definition of highly competent? Is there any job out that has room for one to be more highly competent than another?
Besides pro sports, commissioned sales, and special forces, can you name a place that has real intense competition that is only based on the job itself, and not about who you know? I guess commissioned sales is also sometimes about who you know too.
Like all things, you want to be good at networking right? Well, how do you do "good" at "networking"? Would you consider having a large and exclusive network to be a good network? Then ask yourself, what is cronyism.
Whom out there, who is serious about having a job, is not "highly" competent? What is your definition of highly competent? Is there any job out that has room for one to be more highly competent than another?
Besides pro sports, commissioned sales, and special forces, can you name a place that has real intense competition that is only based on the job itself, and not about who you know? I guess commissioned sales is also sometimes about who you know too.
Like all things, you want to be good at networking right? Well, how do you do "good" at "networking"? Would you consider having a large and exclusive network to be a good network? Then ask yourself, what is cronyism.
I think you really need a vocabulary lesson. Here you go, straight from the dictionary:
Cronyism: the appointment of friends and associates to positions of authority, without proper regard to their qualifications.
Networking: interact with other people to exchange information and develop contacts, especially to further one's career.
The problem is that you can't seem to distinguish the two, when it's very obvious to most.
Now on to the rest of your questions, which are pretty easy to answer. Even if you're competent at the technical aspects of your job, what about the other aspects of working?
What about the ability to function in a meeting?
What about your ability to deal with clients?
What about the ability to keep the company's interests in mind?
What about one's ability to work in a team, meet deadlines, and not require supervision?
What about the ability to achieve profitability in one's work?
What about one's ability to be ethical and honest on the job?
What about the person's trustworthiness?
Hell, I'm just rattling off the ones on the top of my head. In other words, there are dozens of factors that go into hiring someone, factors that distinguish one candidate from another. And, let me tell you, if I know Joe from a previous project, and Joe did a great job and didn't require being supervised constantly, then Joe's my guy. I don't suffer fools and layabouts gladly.
Meanwhile, the world is filled with those with padded resumes who, upon getting hired, can't perform. I also know people who are proficient enough at their core jobs, but I wouldn't allow into a client meeting on a bet because of their marked ability to say stupid things. So if it's a high-stakes assignment, I would much rather hire Joe than roll the dice on someone I don't know or someone who can't be trusted to face a client by himself or herself.
Conversely, if cronyism is getting a job without consideration of one's ability, networking is, in effect, the exact opposite. All networking means is that my name comes up for consideration. That's it. As in, "Well, let's reach out to CPG. He has experience in this arena." Then I come in for a meeting. Either the client has worked with my in the past, or I've met them by networking, or my reputation has proceeded me. But, even then, I have to earn the business.
Doing well at networking is pretty simple. It's simply making sure people in your industry know who you are and what you're capable of achieving. Attend industry meetings, invite people to lunch, you name it. It's nothing more than a steady effort at getting your name out there on an ongoing basis. Because when a need arises, the opportunity will not come to you if people do not know that you exist. In that sense, people who criticize networking are really dealing with egotism on their part. Because they don't feel as if they need to promote themselves. Instead, the world should come to them.
What about the ability to function in a meeting?
What about your ability to deal with clients?
What about the ability to keep the company's interests in mind?
What about one's ability to work in a team, meet deadlines, and not require supervision?
What about the ability to achieve profitability in one's work?
What about one's ability to be ethical and honest on the job?
What about the person's trustworthiness?
Hell, I'm just rattling off the ones on the top of my head. In other words, there are dozens of factors that go into hiring someone, factors that distinguish one candidate from another. And, let me tell you, if I know Joe from a previous project, and Joe did a great job and didn't require being supervised constantly, then Joe's my guy. I don't suffer fools and layabouts gladly.
Meanwhile, the world is filled with those with padded resumes who, upon getting hired, can't perform. I also know people who are proficient enough at their core jobs, but I wouldn't allow into a client meeting on a bet because of their marked ability to say stupid things. So if it's a high-stakes assignment, I would much rather hire Joe than roll the dice on someone I don't know or someone who can't be trusted to face a client by himself or herself.
Conversely, if cronyism is getting a job without consideration of one's ability, networking is, in effect, the exact opposite. All networking means is that my name comes up for consideration. That's it. As in, "Well, let's reach out to CPG. He has experience in this arena." Then I come in for a meeting. Either the client has worked with my in the past, or I've met them by networking, or my reputation has proceeded me. But, even then, I have to earn the business.
Doing well at networking is pretty simple. It's simply making sure people in your industry know who you are and what you're capable of achieving. Attend industry meetings, invite people to lunch, you name it. It's nothing more than a steady effort at getting your name out there on an ongoing basis. Because when a need arises, the opportunity will not come to you if people do not know that you exist. In that sense, people who criticize networking are really dealing with egotism on their part. Because they don't feel as if they need to promote themselves. Instead, the world should come to them.
function in a meeting . . . . deal with clients . . . . work on a team . . . company profitability . . . . meet deadlines . . . . ethics and trustworthiness ! ! ! !
In a best case scenario, you can maybe measure those things, just maybe. But in the current landscape, you are going to have a hard time differentiating people like that unless you are the most picky, stuck-up, brown-nosing, anti-social boss or HR person. So much that it would be hard know whether you made a choice based on logic or emotion. Or the person you have hired is really, really weird. Plus most jobs are so specialized, you wont do more than two at most. When you hire someone in your "network", how are you justifying it over hiring an equally qualified stranger who has good references? Because you already know this person.
The definition you cited, is what most people think of when they think extreme cronyism and extreme nepotism.
function in a meeting . . . . deal with clients . . . . work on a team . . . company profitability . . . . meet deadlines . . . . ethics and trustworthiness ! ! ! !
In a best case scenario, you can maybe measure those things, just maybe. But in the current landscape, you are going to have a hard time differentiating people like that unless you are the most picky, stuck-up, brown-nosing, anti-social boss or HR person. So much that it would be hard know whether you made a choice based on logic or emotion. Or the person you have hired is really, really weird. Plus most jobs are so specialized, you wont do more than two at most. When you hire someone in your "network", how are you justifying it over hiring an equally qualified stranger who has good references? Because you already know this person.
The definition you cited, is what most people think of when they think extreme cronyism and extreme nepotism.
Sorry. Very few people think of that. I mean, jeez, I just handed you a definition straight from the dictionary on what cronyism is. What's more, I don't care how good a brown noser you are. If you can't get the work done, you'll run out of road in any company worth its salt.
Let me guess. You're one of those people who blame your lack of career progress on office politics.
Whom out there, who is serious about having a job, is not "highly" competent? What is your definition of highly competent? Is there any job out that has room for one to be more highly competent than another?
Besides pro sports, commissioned sales, and special forces, can you name a place that has real intense competition that is only based on the job itself, and not about who you know? I guess commissioned sales is also sometimes about who you know too.
Like all things, you want to be good at networking right? Well, how do you do "good" at "networking"? Would you consider having a large and exclusive network to be a good network? Then ask yourself, what is cronyism.
"Doing good" at networking is performing so well on your job, in projects, in communicating and in your relationships with co-workers/customers/mgmt, that people remember you positively and want to work with you again.
I am guessing you have never had to recommend people for promotions or recruit co-workers for special projects? Because if you had, you wouldn't be debating the definition. You would be able to know the best workers off the top of your head.
Right now, my daughter is deciding what to do. She's been offered a major promotion in another division in her company, plus she's been recruited for a similar high level position in a new company (by a former co-worker). That isn't cronyism, that is networking. People know they can depend on her for high performance, no need to look for strangers.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
