Celulares

NEDs when describing how they had built connections had a pronounced emphasis on the nature of the build-up. NEDs were keen to emphasise the social nature of the process, the informality and how serendipity and chance were key features of the connection between individuals. Gwen fluently described how she connected with members of her network.

I have an excellent network. I just keep up with people. So if I haven’t seen them for six months I say “Come on, let’s go and have a drink together” and we just do that. It’s fun. I don’t see it as work. I keep up socially with people. It’s nothing that’s forced or unnatural. It’s getting together every so often and talking about things. Sometimes I can help them and sometimes they can help me. Often it’s a lot of chit-chat and gossip, who’s doing what, who has moved and who has had a big move.

The latest gossip really. (Gwen)

Gwen stressed that when individuals connected there was a light touch, yet information that was perceived as important was exchanged – information on individuals jobs, careers, client business and indeed sometimes very personal information about people – gossip. She was also keen to point out that this was not networking. Networking was considered too formal process for connections that are well known. Gwen’s connecting with ex-colleagues and ex-clients was as a much more personal process and a very private and confidential one.

It’s not the big functions either you know, ‘cause there are quite a lot of these networking meetings. I’ve never ever done anything like that, it’s too false and formal. These are personal connections I have kept up and our conversations are personal and private. (Gwen)

The social and personal nature of connecting is supported by Steven. His connections extend back to his early days training as an Auditor and throughout his career he has nurtured these in a very personal network.

In the early days you go through the rough and smooth and you make buddies for life. Some of my best mentors and indeed friends go way back. It doesn’t matter where we are in the world, we ring each other up and we talk about stuff – personal stuff. It’s not work, it’s great fun.

(Steven)

Despite the personal tone applied to connecting, it was sometimes done at large events that could be described at networking events. Gwen, described going to a social function that had all the hallmarks of a high profile networking event yet she connected with many people there and found it useful

X (ESF Firm) had one the other day, which was great. It was just a big drinks party and there were loads of people there. I probably knew at least ten people in the room and then I bumped into a few others where we found a connection that I could talk to. I had a company in common with them in the past or something. That was a really good one (network event). (Gwen)

Clearly Gwen and Steven perceived their process of connecting with the people they knew as very social, informal and private. However, information that was perceived as important was exchanged. It was this sharing of private and confidential information

that was not publicly available which seemed to build a genuine connection between individuals, a connection that was resilient over time. Also, Gwen revealed that it was not just her existing connections that were “useful” it was also the meeting and connecting with new people in this setting that was important. Similarly, Niels talked about how he used art circles to keep himself informed of what was going on in the business world and to keep up with his connections.

I’m well known in art circles, not because I collect art, even though a lot of people think I do. It’s where I meet up with my buddies. We have a light banter about most things, whose doing well, whose causing mischief and it’s fun and the scenery is pleasing. It’s a pleasant way to catch up.

We don’t take things too seriously, a bit of humorous banter, though useful banter. (Niels)

The social nature of the process was emphasised through the constant referencing of light informal conversations in social settings. Sona elucidated further on this when she described connecting with an ESF.

I had precious few relationships with the search people other than X (major global ESF) where I just happened to know people on a social basis. Well John the Chairman and I are neighbours and we know each other well. We socialise a lot together and are always bumping into each other at garden parties and whatever. We move pretty much in the same circles. (Sona)

Later on, Sona elaborated on her networking, which had the same social context.

You might have a meeting with someone who you know you’ve worked on a deal with or is a friend or a colleague. You might think nothing of it, but that person in turn might the next day be talking to someone else and who knows, whether it’s social relationships, actually most of the time it is. You never know who you’ll be sitting beside at tonight’s dinner party.

It’s fun and yes if someone is up for a role, of course we talk about them and lots of others too. It’s viral and you have to be viral. I guess that’s what most people don’t get! (Sona)

Like Niels, Gwen and Steven, Sona was uncomfortable with the concept of networking, it sounded too formal and contrived.

Networking is a useful word. I wouldn’t do it as a formal exercise, personally that’s not for me. People talk all the time and you take advantage of the opportunities that life throws at you. You can’t just walk up to somebody out of the blue, but if you are sitting next to them at a dinner party that’s different and people introduce you. (Sona)

Sona, like many of the NEDs, described a networking process that was social and informal yet displayed a pursuit of the people she wanted to meet. When she described her success in being considered for a FTSE 100 NED, there was little evidence of serendipity or chance.

You need to sit down and think who you have been networking with and the people you know who could be potentially interesting contacts and you have to work at it. You meet people who get to know you and they introduce you to other people. And you get to know them and eventually you get in the right mix. (Sona)

Many candidates evidenced this ambiguous and contradictory nature to their networking activities. Theresa detailed how chance was a big part in the networking process and described how, in completing her postgraduate qualification at a business school, she met a number of people by chance and serendipity, who later became connections that helped in gaining her first NED.

It was huge serendipity and divine providence but I made the most of the serendipity. I was doing my MSc at LBS and the governing body had gifted a day each to meet with students preparing for interviews. Jack Warner was on the board and he’d gifted a day. I showed up. Not what he was expecting because of course he was expecting a queue of MBAs, because it was for them. He said fancy seeing you here! (It turns out she knew him from her Oxford days). Unbeknown to me he fixed a meeting with Ron Brown, a colleague of his who was CEO of X (FTSE 250 company). Blow me down listen to this! At the same time the school had an evening where they had headhunters meeting students and Y (Global ESF) had an evening. It just so happened that X (FTSE 250 company) were recruiting at the time and Y (Global ESF) had been assigned to the case. I introduced myself and they were interested in someone with a

regulatory background, which I have. Isn’t that an amazing set of coincidences! (Theresa)

The data reveal a far more agentic nature to the unfolding of these events. She had clearly sourced the event, which was not targeted at her group and was aware that her connection from Oxford was leading it. A connection she later revealed she was in touch with. It was also this connection who introduced her to the Chairman who gave her a seat on his board. There were many ESF events at the school and Theresa made a point of attending the event where the ESF in attendance was the one who had been assigned by the Chairman to his NED appointment. She revealed that in their introductory meeting the Chairman had mentioned this ESF to her. In her interview data she referred to these meetings as informal conversations of a catch-up nature, alluding to the possibility that not only did she know her Oxford connection was going to be there but that she had planned to catch up with him. She also mentioned that she had met the Chairman before and knew he was going to be there. It was her appointment to the board of this 250 company that put her on the radar for a FTSE 100 NED.

Candidate Alexi evidenced the same contradictions in describing her networking activities. She emphasised that she did not network or socialise in relation to work.

However, her interview clearly indicated that she undertook these activities with a purpose in mind.

I’m not a networking person. I don’t do it. I’m not someone who socialises with colleagues or my industry. Over the years I have attended industry events or have been happy to entertain customers. As a senior executive you need to get out and about and I’ve done this in many countries and in a few industries, so I’m well known. I tend to maintain relationships with people, informal conversations, keeping on top of things. It’s good to bump into people, it’s a social thing, it’s the only way. (Alexi)

Despite her apparent dislike of the term ‘networking’, Alexi had built connections across several industries and had maintained these over the years. Although the settings were social and informal, she pursued her connections with vigour. Indeed she knew the CEO very well and Chairman a little more vaguely, having met them in these settings many times. The build-up of social capital for a NED candidate was agentically pursued by individuals. However, the contradictory nature of NEDs’ descriptions suggests that

there were norms of behaviour guiding the process of build-up. Individuals may have been agentic in their pursuit of their connections, but they made them in social settings, where seemingly the norms of behaviour and style were discrete. NEDs were keen to point out that ‘networking’ was too contrived and formal for them to engage in.

Nevertheless, they connected with people in light conversation and easy banter in social settings. They wanted to emphasise the serendipity and chance nature of these activities, yet clearly NEDs had purposefully set out to connect with individuals who would help them progress in their path to the boardroom. NEDs seemed to be aware of how they were behaving and the messages they were signalling about themselves in these social situations. Further, there is a sense that NEDs somehow were cognisant that their behaviour and the messages they were signalling were being assessed.

NEDs who had connections at CEO and Chairman level were quick to point these out.

This suggests the NEDs understood they were in the presence of members of the corporate elite when engaging in these activities and they understood it was these members who were assessing them. Further, the NEDs understood that such assessments would be critical to a NED appointment.