The Network Effect Secret That Changes Everything About Hiring

So I was having coffee and doing some thinking about this conversation I had with a founder recently. They were walking me through their hiring process. Standard playbook stuff. Warm introductions from board members. Referrals from their closest advisors. All the things you’re supposed to do when you’re building a team.

And it hit me – they’re missing the biggest opportunity right in front of them.

Here’s what David Burkus figured out in “Friend of a Friend” that explains everything I’ve been seeing in over 20 years in the headhunting business . The best hires almost never come from your obvious connections. They come from that product manager you worked with three years ago who moved to fintech. That engineer who left for a startup you’d never heard of. People on the periphery of your world who’ve built completely different networks since you last talked.

Burkus dug into decades of research and found this pattern everywhere. Mark Granovetter studied job searches back in the 70s. Seventy percent of people who landed great roles did it through what researchers call “weak ties.” People they barely talked to. LinkedIn confirmed the same thing fifty years later with 20 million users. Your casual connections are more valuable than your close ones for finding opportunities.

Makes sense when you think about it. Your close colleagues know the same companies you know. They’re hearing about the same openings. They’re trapped in your information bubble. But that person you grabbed coffee with two years ago? She’s moved to a different space, built entirely new relationships, has access to opportunities you’d never hear about.

The network effect isn’t about building networks. We’re all already swimming in massive, interconnected relationship webs. The question is whether you understand how to navigate them.

Take Michelle McKenna-Doyle’s story. She wanted to become the NFL’s first female CIO but had zero direct connections to the league. Instead of trying to force introductions that didn’t exist, she reached out to a friend at an executive search firm that wasn’t even handling the NFL search. That friend connected her to the firm that was. She became the highest-ranking female executive in NFL history at that time.

The path wasn’t through her strongest relationships. It was through someone who knew different people than she knew. That’s the network effect in action.

This explains why most networking feels so transactional and awkward. Studies show 95% of people at networking events spend their time talking to people they already know. Francesca Gino found that just thinking about professional networking makes people feel literally dirty.

Our instincts are right. You can’t force weak tie creation at cocktail parties with thirty-second elevator pitches. Real connections develop through shared activities, collaborative projects, things you’d be doing anyway because they’re interesting. The best connectors I know don’t think of themselves as networking. They’re just naturally curious about what makes different industries and people tick.

Here’s where it gets really contrarian. The most successful executives are often organizational misfits. People who zigzag between functions instead of climbing traditional ladders. Adam Kleinbaum’s research at Dartmouth found these career wanderers consistently outperform linear-path colleagues. Better performance reviews, more money, faster advancement.

They become bridges between different organizational communities. From a hiring perspective, this changes everything. That candidate who bounced between marketing and operations and product isn’t scattered. They’re potentially your most valuable hire because they can connect disparate parts of your organization in ways functional experts cannot.

I see this constantly with early-stage companies. The VP of Growth who came from engineering can speak both languages. The Head of Product who started in customer success understands user problems at a deeper level. These aren’t resume red flags. They’re superpowers.

Most people approach networking like they’re collecting business cards. But network science reveals it’s not about how many people you know. It’s about understanding who knows whom and positioning yourself strategically within relationship webs.

Ronald Burt studied 673 supply chain managers and found those trained in understanding network structures were 36-42% more likely to improve performance and 42-74% more likely to be promoted. The advantage didn’t come from having more contacts. It came from understanding relationship dynamics between contacts.

This shifts how I think about talent searches completely. Instead of “Who do I know for this role?” I ask “Who do I know who knows people for this role?” The indirect path is often more efficient than the direct one.

Everyone knows about six degrees of separation but applies it wrong. The insight isn’t that we’re all connected. It’s that most of us are terrible at finding optimal paths to specific people or opportunities. Kevin Bacon gets used as the center of Hollywood’s universe in that game, but he actually ranks 663rd in terms of network connectivity. The game works because anyone can be the center of any network if you’re looking for the right connections.

In professional contexts, this means being strategic about introductions. Instead of asking “Do you know anyone at Stripe?” ask “Do you know anyone in fintech who might know people at Stripe?” The indirect approach often works better.

So what does this actually mean for founders building teams? You’re not just hiring individuals. You’re bringing in their entire network along with them. That VP of Engineering doesn’t just solve your technical challenges. They bring relationships with dozens of other engineers you might need later. That Head of Sales brings connections throughout your target market.

Start thinking about dormant connections. People you worked with years ago who’ve moved to different industries. Burkus recommends reaching out to one dormant tie per week. Not with an agenda, just genuine curiosity about what they’re working on now. These conversations often reveal opportunities you’d never see coming.

Encourage your team to think beyond immediate circles when making referrals. The best candidate might be three degrees removed from your current network. Create systems to map and maintain organizational network knowledge. Remember that the most valuable connections often come from unexpected places.

What I love about this research-backed approach is it makes relationship building feel less like sales and more like archaeology. You’re not building something from scratch. You’re discovering and activating valuable connections that already surround you.

This replaces hustle with intelligence, quantity with strategic positioning, transactional relationships with authentic connection. It acknowledges that great hiring happens through relationships while providing scientific understanding of how those relationships actually function.

The next time someone tells you to work your network, remember this. You don’t work networks. You understand them, navigate them, position yourself thoughtfully within them. The difference between those approaches might be the difference between your next mediocre hire and finding someone who transforms your entire company.

That person who could change everything? They’re probably two degrees away from someone you already know. You just need to ask the right questions to find them.