1/ Some people hold back intros, thinking it’s in their self-interest to be the bridge.
That used to work, but there aren’t many proprietary relationships anymore, and even fewer as time goes on.
The people you deliberately aren’t introducing? They’re going to meet anyway.
That used to work, but there aren’t many proprietary relationships anymore, and even fewer as time goes on.
The people you deliberately aren’t introducing? They’re going to meet anyway.
2/ You may think that if you intro, you'll no longer be needed--but if your value stems from being the bridge (e.g middleman)...that’s a fragile place to be.
I expect many managers and talent agents (among others) will learn this the hard way over time.
I expect many managers and talent agents (among others) will learn this the hard way over time.
3/ Long term, proprietary relationships aren’t as feasible—and thus not as defensible.
As information asymmetry decreases, partnerships reshuffle to wherever the value is.
As information asymmetry decreases, partnerships reshuffle to wherever the value is.
4/ On the contrary, you may want to intro them because the biggest beneficiary of it could be you—if they go on to collaborate, they’ll (likely) be grateful they met through you, increasing your social capital, and compounding the more they continue to benefit from the intro.
5/ It’s a powerful thought: One email introduction can birth new partnerships, companies, friendships.
How many connections could be unlocked if people didn’t make themselves middlemen in a zero-sum fashion (or weren't too shy or humble or risk-averse to otherwise introduce)?
How many connections could be unlocked if people didn’t make themselves middlemen in a zero-sum fashion (or weren't too shy or humble or risk-averse to otherwise introduce)?
