The right room: Why relationship context matters more than the size of your network

A large network opens doors. But when the question is "what do I do next?", most leaders want someone who already knows the story.

Ask a senior leader how many professional connections they have and the answer is usually in the thousands. Ask them who they'd call this evening to talk through a role they're weighing up, a restructure they're about to lead, or a conversation with the board they're not sure how to handle, and the list gets a lot shorter.

Neither answer is a problem. A wide network and a small circle of trusted people do different jobs. The trouble starts when we expect one to do the work of the other.

Reach is useful. It isn't the same as support.

There's strong evidence that broad networks matter. Sociologist Mark Granovetter's famous "strength of weak ties" idea, first set out in 1973, argued that acquaintances are often the route to opportunities we'd never hear about from close friends, because they move in different circles. A 2022 study published in Science, covering more than 20 million LinkedIn users, put that to the test at scale. It found that moderately weak ties, people with whom you share around ten mutual connections and rarely speak, were the most likely to help someone move into a new employer, and more than twice as effective as strong ties. [1][2]

That's a good reason to keep a broad network warm. But look at what those ties actually carried: information about openings. A wide network is very good at telling you what is out there. It's much less well placed to tell you whether it's right for you, how a particular culture really works, whether the timing makes sense, or how to approach the conversation that gets you there. That takes someone who knows your situation, your history and your context, and who has no reason to give you anything other than their honest view.

Put simply, contacts can point to the door. It's relationships formed in the right context that help you decide whether to walk through it.

The higher you climb, the fewer people there are to ask

For many leaders, the pool of people who truly understand the job gets smaller with each step up. As Harvard Business Impact puts it, there are fewer leaders than individual contributors, so leaders have a smaller pool of potential confidants. It calls this "simple math", and it reports that more than 70% of new CEOs experience feelings of loneliness. [3]

The picture is similar further up. A survey by RHR International found that half of CEOs experience loneliness in their careers, and 61% of those say it hinders their performance. [4] Research from Stanford Graduate School of Business, The Miles Group and Stanford's Rock Center for Corporate Governance found that nearly two-thirds of CEOs receive no coaching or leadership advice from outside the organisation, while nearly all of them said they enjoy receiving it. [5] (Both surveys are some years old and largely North American, but the pattern they describe will sound familiar to many.)

The people closest to you at work can't always fill that gap either. Hierarchy changes how people speak around you, often without them meaning it to. [4]

Candour needs a private room or space

Some conversations only work when people can say what they really think. That applies to the person giving the opinion as much as the person asking for it.

Harvard Business School's Amy Edmondson, who coined the term "psychological safety", describes it as an environment where candour is expected and people can speak up without fear of retribution. [6] In her research on 51 decision-making teams, members learned more from mistakes where that safety was high, and learning was in turn linked to better team performance. [6]

Public platforms work against that, and there's a name for it. Researchers call it "context collapse": the merging of several audiences, such as colleagues, clients, competitors and friends, into one shared space. [7] Studies of social media behaviour suggest this makes people more reluctant and selective about what they share, and more likely to stay quiet when they think their view differs from their audience's. [7][8]

So when a leader posts a genuine dilemma publicly, a few things tend to happen. The replies come from people who don't know the full picture. They arrive as a spread of opinions, not a considered view. And everyone involved knows they're being watched. It's not a criticism of social media, which does plenty of things well. It's just not built for the conversation where you say, "Honestly, I'm not sure I'm getting this right."

Somewhere to exhale

Leaders' lives are fast, and the pressure rarely stays neatly in one box. Work, family, health and ambition all travel together. What many of us want, at least occasionally, is a place to put things down for an evening.

The advice also needs to come without an angle. A supplier, a recruiter, a prospective client or a colleague with a stake in the outcome can all be generous and well meaning, and their view may still be commercially loaded or politically charged. Often the most useful conversation is with someone who gains nothing either way: a peer from a different organisation, or a different function, who has faced something similar and is happy to say so plainly.

If you're thinking about where to find that, a few things tend to matter:

1. Privacy that's agreed, not assumed. Everyone in the room understands that what's said stays there.
2. No agenda. Nobody is selling, recruiting or positioning.
3. Continuity. The same people, meeting more than once, so the context builds and doesn't have to be explained from scratch each time.
4. A mix of perspectives. Leaders from different functions and sectors, who can ask the question you haven't thought to ask.
5. Real conversation. Enough time and the right setting for people to talk properly, rather than trade business cards.

Connections that endure

The relationships that support leaders through a next role or an organisational change are rarely the ones made in a rush. They tend to be formed in the right context, with time to talk, and they deepen over the years that follow.

Keep the wide network. It earns its place. But it's worth asking, now and then, who you'd call tomorrow if you needed a candid view, and whether you've given them the context to give it.

Sources

1. The Conversation, "A huge LinkedIn study just showed which connections are better when searching for a job" (2022): https://theconversation.com/a-huge-linkedin-study-just-showed-which-connections-are-better-when-searching-for-a-job-190428
2. MIT News, "The power of weak ties in gaining new employment" (2022): https://news.mit.edu/2022/weak-ties-linkedin-employment-0915
3. Harvard Business Impact, "New to Leadership? Here's How to Address Loneliness": https://www.harvardbusiness.org/insight/new-to-leadership-heres-how-to-address-loneliness
4. Vistage, "Why Many Leaders Feel Lonely at the Top" (citing RHR International): https://vistage.com/research-center/personal-development/wellness/20210308-lonely-at-the-top
5. Stanford Graduate School of Business, "David Larcker: 'Lonely at the Top' Resonates for Most CEOs": https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/insights/david-larcker-lonely-top-resonates-most-ceos
6. Harvard Business School Working Knowledge, "Four Steps to Building the Psychological Safety That High-Performing Teams Need": https://www.library.hbs.edu/working-knowledge/four-steps-to-build-the-psychological-safety-that-high-performing-teams-need-today
7. Springer Nature Link, "Context Collapse" (encyclopaedia entry): https://link.springer.com/rwe/10.1007/978-3-031-52643-5_68-1
8. Ihm, J. and Kim, E., "Online news sharing in the face of mixed audiences: Context collapse, homophily, and types of social media": http://www.jenniferihm.com/uploads/5/0/2/7/50277035/online_news_sharing_in_the_face_of_mixed_audiences_context_collapse_homophily_and_types_of_social_media_published.pdf

Photo by Vitaly Gariev on Unsplash