I’ve been playing with this idea for a few weeks, and it’s not quite coming together, so I’m going to ramble for a bit and see whether it starts to solidify as I go.
It started with a quip I made to a friend last month where I claimed that the winners of the last ten years were defined by technology (e.g. Google), but that the next ten years would be defined by social connections (e.g. BJ Fogg on why Facebook is bigger than you think). This is partially an extension of Nicholas Carr’s book Does IT Matter?, where he argues that IT will be commoditized (something that is starting to happen with services like Amazon’s Web Services). In a world where technology can be outsourced (heck, where even intelligence is outsourced), the only remaining differentiator will be the strong social connections necessary to more effectively and efficiently outsource tasks and thinking.
I was having coffee with a friend today, talking about the importance of trust. As a manager or coworker, I can’t outsource work to another coworker unless I trust that they will deliver what is needed. Otherwise, I have to micromanage the coworker to make sure the task gets done, and the delegation takes more total time (mine and the coworker’s) than it would have to do it myself. Outsourcing is ineffective without developing trust and a social bond.
Okay, so now let’s imagine a completely free agent world, where all services are available from a consultant. What differentiates a successful company from an unsuccessful one? It’s not the technology or the talent, as those are available to everybody. It’s the companies that are most successful at building strong social trust with others, so that effort does not have to be duplicated, and management on both sides can be kept to a minimum. Admittedly, we’re not in that world yet, but that seems to be where things are headed. People that learn to build those social bonds will have an advantage as that world takes shape.
In such a world, investing in social relationships is as valuable as investing in financial relationships, hence the quippy title of “Social Capitalist” (as opposed to venture capitalist) for this post. Social capital will be a valuable commodity, and one that can’t necessarily be bought with money (although Jofish and I once had an interesting conversation about the conversion of social capital to financial capital and vice versa). It takes the investment of time and trust, and that is a commodity where we all start equally – nobody has more than 24 hours in a day. We may take different approaches to building those relationships, but in the end, it comes down to whether one can rely on others to help advance one’s agenda.
What does it mean to invest in social relationships? To take one model, let’s look at the world of professional sports, which is truly a free agent world. Professional agents often start following potential stars as early as middle school. They cultivate relationships with these kids, talk to their parents, work for free on their behalf, all to lay the groundwork that the family might choose them as an agent when the kid goes pro. They have to invest in the relationship before the athlete is already successful in the hopes of having a stronger bond of trust when that success happens.
I wonder if a similar model would work in the coming world – investing in bonds of trust and friendship for the sake of helping the other person in the hopes of later being able to build on those bonds in a professional relationship. This is one of the reasons to go to an elite university – the bonds created there can benefit one throughout life, as they are built on social capital that was generated long before there was a financial incentive.
What traits make for good “social capitalists”?
- Reliable – one has to be trustworthy and always deliver on promises, and preferably go above and beyond.
- Selfless – one has to be genuinely interested in helping others. Quid pro quo may work in a cut-throat capitalist world, but in a social capitalist world, trust can’t be earned if one is keeping score.
- Understanding – one can’t be helpful unless one understands the problems of others. Building social capital requires empathy and an ability to see things from the other’s perspective.
- Likable – we tend to trust likable people. If I’m a negative cynic, I’m not much fun to be around, and that reduces the time I have to build trust with others. If I’m a happy optimist, people want to spend time with me, and that increases the chances I have to build trust.
- Ability to prioritize – we have limited time and social energy, so we need to invest that time wisely. So we need to recognize people that have the most potential (you’ll note that agents are rarely doing favors for families of 5’5″ basketball players). This may seem Machiavellian and at odds with previous traits, but it generally works out naturally. As one of my friends noted recently, if I’m meeting a new person, the new person has to be more interesting and fun than my existing friends who I already don’t have time to see for he or she to make it into my “regular rotation”. Or as another friend noted when I lamented that an ex-coworker wasn’t that interesting, “Remember that your standard of “interesting” is very high.”
Huh. Looks a lot like the list of traits for being a good friend (except for the last one). Funny that.
As I noted at the top of this post, I’m still noodling around with this idea of what it means to invest as a social capitalist, so I’d be curious to hear what other people think.
P.S. I keep on meaning to post more, but I keep on getting interrupted, this time due to attending the wedding of AWESOME last weekend, and then trying to see lots of people while I’m here in the Bay Area.