How Might We Stimulate Broader Participation in Our Conversations?

















The degree to which status and quality are perceived to be linked drives the likelihood of actively engaging in social networking. Meritocratic cultures probably enhance the coupling of status and quality. That can actually inhibit the participation of low-status persons in collaborative communities. That's a problem. Complex challenges are best tackled with cognitive diversity. That suffers when the conversation is limited to people who are high-performers along similar dimensions. If we wish to cultivate equitable and valuable communities, we need to find ways to help people identify and articulate the unique value they bring to the conversation.
We at Human Scale Business are dedicated to cultivating collaborative communities that provide access to insights and opportunities. Naturally, we're interested in understanding the factors that discourage participation. So, the headline in the Kellogg Insights newsletter caught my eye:
Why Are Some People More Reluctant to Network Than Others?
The benefits of professional networking are backed by research, anecdote, and career coaches galore—and yet a lot of people shy away from it. A global survey of nearly 16,000 LinkedIn users revealed that while nearly 80 percent of professionals consider networking crucial to career success, almost 40 percent admit that they find it hard to do.

An easy explanation might be that 25 to 40 percent of the population are introverts who find social networking off-putting and exhausting. However, I'm an introvert who has systematically engaged in social networking over the course of my career. The easy explanation may not be an explanation at all.
A Focus on Agency
The Kellogg Insights piece summarized a paper co-authored by Jiyin Cao, a professor at Stony Brook University. She describes her research as being at the intersection of trust, technology, culture, and social networks. Professor Cao and her colleague took a fresh look at a familiar question:
Why do high-status people have larger social networks than do low-status people?
Previous research highlighted two extrinsic factors:

* High-status people are embedded in advantageous social networks.
* High-status people attract outreach from others.

In my interview with her, Cao explained that her work focused on high-status people's agency and intrinsic characteristics that encourage some—but not all—to engage in behaviors conducive to building social networks over time.
Self-Perpetuating Hierarchy
The following is my interpretation of Cao's research in the form of a causal loop diagram:

* An increase in status causes an increase in self-perceived value. That is, high-status people tend to believe they have something meaningful to contribute to the contribution. (I'll come back to this assertion in a moment.)
* An increase in self-perceived value increases perceived receptivity. In other words, if you believe you have something to contribute, you are less fearful that your social outreach will be rebuffed.
* As your perception of receptivity increases, so does the likelihood that you'll actively engage in networking.
* Over time, active networking broadens and deepens your social network.
* Having a larger and more diverse social network improves your access to resources and opportunities.
* Such improved access helps boost your status.

This reinforcing cycle can be virtuous: high status begets high s...