Networking works. Groups are formed to promote it. Companies sell how-to lessons. So Networking must be wonderful--right?

Many corporate contracts go to "somebody who knows somebody." Quick. Easy.

That's been the political-payback system since forever and also a key corporate outsourcing method for too long. Are you satisfied with political performances, categorically? Is that good enough for the corporation?

Sure, networking works--but should it?

Whereas the whole world pays lip service to "best available" and related euphemisms, lip service too often prevails. Too often the contract went/goes to "somebody who knew/knows somebody." Quality is at stake.

In high school, most kids are average or below. . .and they still need to make a living, whether or not they graduate. If these marginals can survive in business later by relying on friends and pass-along contacts, then they can still remain average or below--no effort required!


Cutthroat competition seems to occur mostly at the lowest and very highest levels:
--Low level: One professional writers' group found, after helping neophytes learn, that one inexperienced person had borrowed the work of a friend, submitted it as a personal sample, and goofed the contract.

--High level: Among the high rollers, massive contracts and profits are at stake; and so many competitors promise anything. Beware! But they answer to their stockholders, not your boss! So don't buy from someone who simply offered you a business card at a networking fest. Do your due diligence work!


Unfortunately, corporations experience too many failures (okay--disappointments is a less objectionable term) in programs prepared for employee meetings, training, and other group communications functions. It's likely that a disproportionate number of disappointments are being derived via those contractors who had received (not "won") contracts because of networking.

When talking with my own clients over the decades, and when the discussion touched on inadequate (disappointing) programs of their past (which disappointments provided our/my sales opening) that no-bid networking system seemed to be at fault. . . on most occasions of failure (or disappointment, dissatisfaction, or not quite right-ness, or [?; specify your term] outcomes, if measured at all).

Understanding the fact that disappointing programs will skew toward networking sources is not difficult--only embarrassing. After all, "everyone" loves networking. It works, doesn't it?

Bidded contracts require competition. Networking contacts don't. Competition fosters and demands competence and merit. Networking doesn't. In fact, networking is anti-merit and favors the less prepared and also-rans, rather than the "best available." This is not to say that the bidding process will necessarily turn up a winner every time. Accidents and surprises do happen; but there appear to be fewer misses via bids. Claims are everywhere; expertise is earned and usually known, by established reputation, not "who you know."

HR has a better chance of succeeding in employee programming when it
--a) firmly establishes the rule that "someone knows someone" will not be the sole criterion used for purchasing employee communications programs;

--b) that every instance of contract shall be bid, and the contract let-er must compare in writing the "winning" bid to at least two other submitted, verifiable bid quotations;

--c) that the criteria used shall in all instances include more than just the lowest price unless it can be demonstrated that price is the sole differential; and

--d) that contract samples shall be submitted whenever various levels of quality could be offered/selected and/or misunderstood.

If you do all of that, you'll have a chance of striking programming paydirt on a regular basis.

Meanwhile, think back on the most disappointing program that you, the HR Department, or anybody else put together--it's always The Other Guy who goofs, anyhow. Could that program have been improved? Was the contract let by bid or by "somebody who knew somebody?" Interesting? Ask around for other instances. How assigned? Still interesting?

Now, what are you going to do about it?