What your network can actually say about you

A senior leader I interviewed earlier this year did the maths while we were talking.

He had around 100 people he'd have called his network. After his role was made redundant, about 10 replied properly. Of those, 2 could actually do something useful.

100, 10, 2.

He wasn't upset when He said it. He was surprised. He'd spent over 20 years being well connected and had never once tested whether that was true.

Let's dive in.

Senior hiring runs on signal, and it has done for a long time.

Between 70 - 85% of Director+ roles are never publicly advertised.

They move through conversations before they ever become a listing, and often become a “nominal job advertisement” (when a company must advertise the role eventhough they already have selected someone for it).

That isn't a conspiracy. At senior level the hire carries real risk, the search is frequently confidential, and someone who’s known and proven is the logical choice.

A listing is what happens when the conversations don't produce anyone.

At the same time, 63% of senior candidates compete for ~30% of the roles. Everyone crowds into the visible market, which is the smallest and busiest part of it.

So the arithmetic is unforgiving: what you can see of the market is the part everyone else can see too. The rest of it runs through people.

None of that is new. What's changed is how many senior people are being pushed into that market at the same time.

Around half of recent layoffs have been at manager level or above, and manager headcount at large US and UK corporates is down 6.1% over 3 years. More senior people, same narrow visible door.

A thin network is perceived as a personal failing. It usually isn't one.

Corporate networks are built on shared context. Same office, same programme, same report reviews on the same Monday morning. The relationship has something to run on because the context forces it to, every week, without anyone having to maintain it deliberately.

Take that context away and a lot of those connections have nothing left to do. People are mean and stop caring. There's just nothing obvious they can do to help.

The second reason is measurement. People count connections. 500, 2,000, 10K+ whatever the number says. Size tells you almost nothing about whether a single one of them could act on your behalf tomorrow.

There's a line I keep coming back to from the research conversations: “the last person to know you have a problem with your network is you”.

It looks fine when you don’t need anything, right up until the moment you do. And it looks fine for a reason. While you're in role, your network is constantly being used. Introductions, favours, quick calls. It just isn't being used for you.

Try measuring it differently.

Your network is whatever other people can currently say about you when you're not present. That's the asset. Everything else is a contact list.

Signal means 3 things are true at once:

1) They know what you're looking for.

2) They can say it in one sentence to someone who's never met you.

3) They're motivated enough to bother.

Most senior professionals have a large network and very little signal.

Plenty of people who'd happily take the call. Very few who could refer you with any precision.

The data on why that matters is pretty straightforward:

Signal requires specificity, and specificity is exposing.

"I'm keeping my options open" what you others to say about you.

"I'm exploring opportunities" is the same sentence which syas nothing about what you do and need. Both are protective, both are completely reasonable, and both are why 100 becomes 2.

To be referable you have to say something concrete enough that another person can pick it up and hand it on.

Which means being willing to expose what you want publicly and be a vulnreable; because after 20 years of being the one other people came to for help, it might feel a little uncomfortable to be in those shoes.

That's a genuine cost, and I don't think it helps to pretend otherwise.

Here's why I'm telling you this in a career newsletter rather than a founder one.

I've spent most of this year working on exactly this for Zelova, and I got it wrong first.

My early asks were broad and polite. They produced warm replies and very little else. The conversations that moved anything came after I could say the thing in one sentence, and after other people could repeat that sentence accurately.

Same mechanism, same discomfort. I'd assumed I'd be an exception to it...(don’t we all sometimes!)

Run this test this week. It takes about 10 minutes and it's unpleasant in a useful way.

Pick 5 people in your network.

Write down (honestly) what each of them would say if a third party asked what you're after at the moment.

Not what you'd like them to say. What they'd actually say, based on the last real conversation you had with them.

If you can't fill in 5, you have your answer. And it's a fixable one: you've never given them the sentence, so they have or would be improvising on your behalf, badly, for months. Dangerous.

What's your sentence? Reply to this email and tell me. And if I can help you in anyway, I will.

David

I put the full version of this into the Network Audit: the 100 to 2 problem, how to score signal rather than count contacts, and how to rebuild it deliberately. It's free here.