Theories relating to networking

The Course Reader on Professional Networks talks about many very interesting theories regarding networks.

Altman’s ‘Privacy Regulation’ Theory, I believe, helps us understand further why some individuals are interested in Professional Networking and others maybe are not so interested. This kind of thinking links well with the theory of ‘Affiliation’. Each individual possesses a different degree of desired contact at any one point in time “If we have too little contact, we feel isolated, but if we have too much contact, we feel crowded” extract from Crisp, J & Turner, R(2007 pp266- 268). For example; you meet a person for the first time who has been in a busy, crowded environment all day (has had their affiliation levels met), they may not be in the right frame of mind to help/get to know you. Their sub conscious need for private time will have begun to take effect they will probably find anything you do or say to be an annoyance or a barrier stopping them from having some time to themselves. In a scenario like this you should note that if you meet the same person again under different circumstances (this time they’ve been doing paperwork on their own in an office all day) their attitude towards you may be completely different. It is for this very reason that I now know it is vital to chase up your leads and really beat their door down till they respond. Say for example you have been given the email address of a contact to try and get you an audition. If you don’t get a reply at first it may simply be because the person is not in the mood to talk to you. Obviously you don’t want to keep sending them emails but maybe another a few days later just to remind them that you’re still interested could work to your advantage.

Obviously social networking is all about people co-operating in a community to achieve maximum benefit, the reader suggests ‘a work related community held together by either close working affiliation or more distant but common work interests or needs’. This reminds me of Game Theory which is mentioned in the reader. Axelrod realised the importance of cooperation, especially the benefits of cooperating fully with others, until you reach a point of maximum benefit, then a choice emerges. This is exactly where the Prisoner’s Dilemma comes into play.

A classic example of the prisoner's dilemma (PD) is presented as follows:

Two suspects are arrested by the police. The police have insufficient evidence for a conviction, and, having separated the prisoners, visit each of them to offer the same deal. If one testifies for the prosecution against the other (defects) and the other remains silent (cooperates), the defector goes free and the silent accomplice receives the full 10-year sentence. If both remain silent, both prisoners are sentenced to only six months in jail for a minor charge. If each betrays the other, each receives a five-year sentence. Each prisoner must choose to betray the other or to remain silent. Each one is assured that the other would not know about the betrayal before the end of the investigation. How should the prisoners act? The dilemma is that the Nash equilibrium for the prisoner’s dilemma – that is the stable, rational solution – is that both should defect, but this results in a much worse outcome than if both were to cooperate.’ (Internet wikipedia)

A lot of these theories have opened my eyes to the inner workings of social networking, what I mean is getting in the head of the person you’re trying to connect with. A particularly poignant case is with ‘affiliation’ and ‘privacy regulation’. These theories delve into the minds of the human beings we need to network such as busy company managers or directors who spend longer in their office than actually directing as they like.