Connections

On the question of how problematic it is that you typically need some kind of an "in" to get a job, I think you need to distinguish between some different cases of connections. After all, a lot of the people I know are people I got to know through work. If you get in touch with someone because you're working in the same field and admire/respect each other work, and that becomes a semi-social relationship, it doesn't seem at all problematic for that kind of "in" to perhaps pay off in work terms down the road. The only alternative would be for people to deliberately avoid social interaction with people whose work they admire.

Still, I think Peter Suderman is understating the scope of the problem, particularly in fields without clear metrics of quality. People obtain positions of some power/influence/whatever and then use those positions to build, in effect, patronage networks wherein they get to hand out favors to friends and hope that the ability to hand out favors will help shield then from critical scrutiny. I think a lot of journalism needs to be understood in this vein.

Comments

The situation is further complicated by the necessity of (in addition to the right connections) what I can only describe as "inculcation into the ways of the tribe" for most media jobs--that is, individuals who haven't received specific and directed mentoring for a particular career are unlikely to be qualified for it.

For example, I really doubt that Peter Suderman got a two-year degree from a community college in his Indiana hometown, then just sat down in his parents' garage and started producing the kind of work that got him hired as an editor at a Washington think tank.

Posted by James Gary | July 13, 2008 4:08 PM

to build, in effect, patronage networks wherein they get to hand out favors to friends and hope that the ability to hand out favors will help shield then from critical scrutiny.

It needn't be so malicious. If there aren't good metrics of quality, your standard is going to be something like, "Do I like it?" And, unsurprisingly, you like work by people like you. Since "people like you" is a pretty good description of the set of people you're likely to become friends with, it isn't surprising that people who fall into one category fall into another.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | July 13, 2008 4:12 PM

Matt's last sentence is actually a pretty bold claim.

Yes, this is how the world works. Without trying to eliminate networking altogether, one needs to recognize that it is moderately problematic, especially for groups who have historically been on the outside. One can create institutions that limit the role of old-boy/patronage networks. In academia, I think we have done an okay job of this. The hiring process is fairly ritualized; nothing happens without a portfolio of work getting reviewed by a committee.

But human beings are still social animals.

Posted by Ted | July 13, 2008 4:17 PM

"Still, I think Peter Suderman is understating the scope of the problem, particularly in fields without clear metrics of quality. People obtain positions of some power/influence/whatever and then use those positions to build, in effect, patronage networks wherein they get to hand out favors to friends and hope that the ability to hand out favors will help shield then from critical scrutiny. I think a lot of journalism needs to be understood in this vein."

An attempt by Yglesias to win an Yglesias award.

Dude used to be honest, y'know. Back before he decided to be "helpful" instead.

-----

"It needn't be so malicious. If there aren't good metrics of quality, your standard is going to be something like, "Do I like it?" And, unsurprisingly, you like work by people like you. Since "people like you" is a pretty good description of the set of people you're likely to become friends with, it isn't surprising that people who fall into one category fall into another."

No. That's not quite how it works.

Before poor Brian Beutler got shot, he was the beneficiary of a campaign by his friends to promote his blog, not because his blog was especially interesting, but because his friends wanted to help a friend.

If you don't guard against that kind of thing, you're no better than the mafia.

Posted by Petey | July 13, 2008 4:28 PM

Without trying to eliminate networking altogether, one needs to recognize that it is moderately problematic, especially for groups who have historically been on the outside. One can create institutions that limit the role of old-boy/patronage networks.

Another way to counteract paleological patronage networks is to invest the time into creating shadow networks, and draw from the untapped talent base of marginalized communities to give voice to non-hegemonic perspectives. If the distrubition/promotion networks are good enough, market forces can elevate alternate POVs to mainstream viability.

In the field of left-wing journalism and opinion-making, I think the blogosphere is a great example of this phenomenon.

DIY.

Posted by scythia | July 13, 2008 4:32 PM

My initial question, really, was about whether or not this sort of thing produces enough inefficiency that it might someday be less pervasive. I think the consensus is that we would need real data, and this is one of those questions where data is hard to come by (for obvious reasons).

On a level of simple fairness, this bugs me; and it particularly bugs me in light of the common conservative tendency to extremely simplistic readings of economics. For example, if you work hard and fly right, etc., you'll get the job of your dreams. But that isn't true, and this is one of the reasons it isn't always true, one of many complicating factors that challenges bootstraps economics.

Posted by Freddie | July 13, 2008 4:39 PM

not because his blog was especially interesting

I liked his blog, so I don't find that entirely convincing.

And you're swallowing the issue whole, in any case. You don't find it interesting, so you can't understand any promotion of it. Friends of Beutler--as they're presumably like him--might find interesting the same things he finds interesting. This isn't a very controversial proposition in something like music recommendations: you presumably listen to recommendations from people who like the same bands you do. Same thing works in other areas.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | July 13, 2008 4:45 PM

I'm reminded of Bill Richardson's point about how when someone gives you an appointment you pay them back by working hard and doing a good job, and not by mere loyalty.

Posted by Chris M | July 13, 2008 4:46 PM

The need on inside help is dependent on the career field, the ratio of people wanting in to the number of jobs, and whether compensation is normally distributed or log-normally distributed.

Look at the media in DC, there are more people wanting in than there are jobs, the pay is log-normally distributed, and you cannot live in DC on entry level pay.

Compare to medical careers. Every hospital in DC is short nurses, pharmacist, and x-ray techs. However, the number of people without jobs who want those jobs is low, the pay in normally distributed, the biggest credential is your license to practice or specific certification. Thus, hospitals in dc hire people all of the time who have no in.

Posted by superdestroyer | July 13, 2008 4:49 PM

For example, if you work hard and fly right, etc., you'll get the job of your dreams. But that isn't true, and this is one of the reasons it isn't always true, one of many complicating factors that challenges bootstraps economics.

In fairness, there are certain jobs where this is true. However, the reality is that in the USA, with 300 million people, of the millions of job openings that exist, many do not select and promote based on merit. For certain jobs that can't be translated directly into added value, intangibles will become the dominant selection process once the candidates are past a certain threshold of competence.

If you are one of those parents who wants to inculcate your children with the values of "work hard, do the right thing, and things will work out," then you need to steer them into industries where this is true. Steering them away from media-type jobs and think tank "analyst" jobs is probably a good bet if you want them to succeed under that value system and if you want them to internalize that value system.

The fact that so many conservatives publicly singing the values of "bootstrap economics" are the exact sort of boobs who got where they are because of their connections rather than competence -- George Will and Jonah Goldberg, for example -- indicates to me that they are either delusional, lying, or simply believe that they are exempt from the threats of the meritocracy that they espouse.

Posted by Tyro | July 13, 2008 4:50 PM

"this is one of those questions where data is hard to come by"

No. This is one of those question where data is literally impossible to come by.

-----

"Friends of Beutler--as they're presumably like him--might find interesting the same things he finds interesting."

Of course. But that's not what's at issue here.

The issue is whether or not they'd be promoting his blog if they were aware of it, but weren't personally friends with him. I assert that they wouldn't be.

And to make myself clear, giving shout outs for friends isn't the moral equivalent of being mafia, but there is a slippery slope there if one doesn't resolve to be careful.

Posted by Petey | July 13, 2008 4:59 PM

...giving shout outs for friends isn't the moral equivalent of being mafia...

...but it is, apparently, the exact equivalent of being a trust fund scumbag.

Petey, your contributions here have become seriously devalued by your post-Edwards/post-Hillary descent into trollery. Come back in a couple of years and maybe it will have been forgotten.

Posted by DMonteith | July 13, 2008 5:10 PM

And to make myself clear, giving shout outs for friends isn't the moral equivalent of being mafia, but there is a slippery slope there if one doesn't resolve to be careful.

Um, last time I checked, the primary evil of the mafia (at least in its heyday) was that they organized and encouraged loansharking, illegal gambling, prostitution, car theft, drug dealing, labor monopolies, and murder-for-hire.

The fact that these guys used a patronage system and had a "code of honor" was actually their one saving grace, the thing about them that made them recognizably human and sympathetic. That's what all the movies about them glorify.

Seriously, Petey, why didn't you go for the easy jab that Matt went to Harvard and supposedly has a trust fund, and that's why his defense of patronage should be dismissed? Because when you try to make a moral argument instead of an ad hominem one, you're pretty shitty at it.

Posted by Philly | July 13, 2008 9:03 PM

You're dead-on right about networking in journalism. It has an especially pernicious effect when journalists fail to call out well-placed chums - e.g., Pat Buchanan on racism and anti-semitism, Bob Novak on Plamegate (among other things), old TNR colleagues who can't bring themselves to call Charles Krauthammer a partisan hitman, network anchors who treat Rush Limbaugh like a sage, the AP crew on sucking up to McCain. I could go on...

Posted by allbetsareoff | July 13, 2008 10:48 PM

I'm puzzled by the claim that journalism has no 'clear metrics of quality'. If it is true that there are no reasonably clear standards of quality for journalistic work, what is the point of complaining against patronage? That complaint is meaningful only if we assume that distribution by patronage is bad because it will cause more deserving candidates for a job in journalism to be passed over (and, as a result, lower the quality of information and commentary provided by the media). But if there are no reasonably clear standards of quality for journalistic work, there are no more deserving candidates (and no reason to worry about a lowering of journalistic standards), and the complaint fails.

Posted by gr | July 14, 2008 1:55 AM

1) Before Matt got into Harvard he went to The Dalton School, a very pricey and very prestigious Upper East Side prepschool in Manhattan.

Trust me: that matters too. Big time.

According to Wikipedia: "In 2003, the Wall Street Journal conducted a ranking of secondary schools in the U.S. who sent the most students to Harvard University, Yale University, Princeton University, Dartmouth College, the University of Pennsylvania, Cornell University, Brown University, Pomona College, the University of Chicago, and Duke University. Dalton placed fifth."

Last I checked Dalton's annual tuition came to more than $30,000 a year.

What's more, it helps to have connections to even get in when you're a toddler on the New York Cityprepschool kindergarten circuit. (I'm not being facetious. It exists.)

Then, yes, Harvard.

I really don't want to be a jerk about this (a la Petey), but Matt's in his early twenties and writing for the Atlantic.

He might really want to give some thought about how he got where he is before he posts anything so silly.

2) And, yes, Petey you did indeed write "If you don't guard against that kind of thing [networking], you're no better than the mafia." Beyond stupid. Beyond parody.

What's more, it's a shame your hero John Edwards (I see you still link to him) didn't following your words before he took that hedge fund job with The Fortress Investment Group.

Posted by A Guy Whose Eyes Are Still Rolling From That Post | July 14, 2008 2:36 AM

"Seriously, Petey, why didn't you go for the easy jab that Matt went to Harvard and supposedly has a trust fund"

Cuz Matt actually wrote something honest and interesting on the topic.

There are plenty of opportunities for the easy jabs in the 90% of his posts these days that are self-serving, patently dishonest, and wrong-headed.

-----

"And, yes, Petey you did indeed write "If you don't guard against that kind of thing [networking], you're no better than the mafia." Beyond stupid."

Disagree.

Sure mafia-like journalists don't personally go out and shoot people. That obviously isn't the type of comparison I was making.

But when professions start worrying about protecting their own and benefiting from the resulting loyalty of underlings rather than in doing their jobs with an eye toward the public interest, things break down. Markos Moulitsas, for example, is a mafia boss. That's his job description. It's next to impossible to understand what Markos does without making reference to the mafia, since that's the template.

Posted by Petey | July 14, 2008 8:27 AM

I'm puzzled by the claim that journalism has no 'clear metrics of quality'. If it is true that there are no reasonably clear standards of quality for journalistic work, what is the point of complaining against patronage? That complaint is meaningful only if we assume that distribution by patronage is bad because it will cause more deserving candidates for a job in journalism to be passed over (and, as a result, lower the quality of information and commentary provided by the media). But if there are no reasonably clear standards of quality for journalistic work, there are no more deserving candidates (and no reason to worry about a lowering of journalistic standards), and the complaint fails.

This is a very good point. The standards are political ones, and the real issue behind these incoherent and therefore self-serving - if not entirely consciously so - appeals to the principle of meritocracy is the old, "who, whom?"

Posted by TheOtherCyrus | July 14, 2008 10:13 AM

I think the real problem these days is with getting your foot in the door of certain industries: of course you need to establish yourself in a field via networking to advance in it, and politics are inescapable in any industry.

I do find that when it comes to getting your foot in the door, higher-paying "soulless" type jobs (banking, law, etc.) do a much better job of creating an even playing field than more creative and/or civic minded jobs--journalism for example.

Though I'm sure there's good arguments to be made for why this is the case, it remains pretty obvious that big players in industries like journalism have been pretty much ignoring factors like stamping out nepotism and hiring entry-level candidates fairly / based on past achievement compared to big firms and banks (who, as any student can attest, have more involved and proactive recruiting processes).

I very much believe industries like journalism are losing talented prospects to law firms and the like because of this situation -- and the quality of current journalism suffers because of it.

(And it's not just the money... I have many friends who openly don't care much about money, really wanted to get into journalism, but go into law or banking because the career path is fairer and makes more sense)

Posted by Its Their Fault | July 14, 2008 11:33 AM

One can create institutions that limit the role of old-boy/patronage networks. In academia, I think we have done an okay job of this.

Actually, academia is one of the worst offenders. Legacy preferences and preferences for big donors at top schools, as well as their historic unwillingness to admit a lot of lower-class students, probably do more to cement the old boy network than anything else, because the one thing that can move a member of a traditionally excluded group into the network is an impressive credential like a degree from a top school.

Posted by Dilan Esper | July 14, 2008 2:13 PM

Dilan Esper, in context, Ted is talking about the faculty hiring and tenure process, not the college admissions process. I think Ted is overstating the case: many faculty get their appointment because of connections that their advisor can leverage. On the other hand, tenure decisions generally come down to raw productivity in terms of number of publications, which is as fair as any process can be.

the one thing that can move a member of a traditionally excluded group into the network is an impressive credential like a degree from a top school.

Perhaps. But what is it a network of? An impressive degree opens up some opportunities that wouldn't be available otherwise (access to positions in corporate law and investment banking) but don't play a role in other professions that provide economic advancement (accounting and medicine). Engineering falls somewhere in between, as "impressive credentials" in the field can be had from top public universities which are less given to the legacy/patronage system when it comes to gatekeeping.

Posted by Tyro | July 14, 2008 2:37 PM

I'd like to say that this is an interesting subject and I think Tyro has the right idea.

You should be careful about what kind of career you go into. A lot of things should factor in besides what kind of work you like, but unfortunately people have to make decisions about their career preparation well before they are really ready to.

A lot of the jobs earning more than 100K, this will definitely apply to. That might bother you a lot, but if you really want to make that kind of money, law or medicine is always an option. If you just get into a decent law school and then make really good grades, you are set (as long as you're okay working long hours). I am curious about the selection process for the vast numbers of mid and low level managers making 30-100K/year, though. Those are jobs that should theoretically be available to a lot of people with some experience in the field, and I hope that is actually true; it may not be.

Posted by mpowell | July 14, 2008 3:24 PM

Dilian Esper writes "as well as their [top schools] historic unwillingness to admit a lot of lower-class students."

Well, no.

Actually "top schools" have been historically unwilling to admit large numbers from two groups: Jews, Asians.

Many of those were poor or working-class, true. But the formal quotas and other games used to limit the number of Jews and Asians weren't applied (weren't designed to apply) to other groups, no matter how poor they were.

The Ivy Leauge and other colleges have long struggled -- first through formal brazen discrimination (quotas for Jews) and then through other means ("geographic representation", the professed desire for "a well rounded student body", deciding that all Asian success stories were essentially the same and of no great interest so that an immigrant grocer's son with perfect math scores was less appealing that a Choate gal who'd really excelled in a sport) -- to make sure Jews and Asians are not represented in the numbers they would be if they were simply held to the same academic standards as other groups. This continues to this day.

This is actually pretty basic knowledge.

Posted by A Guy Whose Eyes Are Still Rolling From That Post | July 14, 2008 8:24 PM

I'm too late on this thread, but I thought I might as well post, if only for myself.

I worked with recruiting for a global high-level consulting company. Statistics regarding getting jobs due to an "in" or "connections" show this helps, and while there are many reasons "connections" help, the biggest influences are quite prosaic.

A big influence, in my experience, was matching skills and interests with the job opening -- a connection can clarify this right away and it speeds the whole process up. So "right fit," though not totally assured by a connection, is less iffy and since speed is valuable, connections have this advantage.

The second is "no surprises:" this is a recruiting headache/worry -- someone who looks good on paper but inadequate due diligence failed to spot a molestation or abuse charge or something from the past. These aren't necessarily deal breakers, but in consulting at higher levels the 'taint' (if it shows up) can be a real liability.

So right fit, greater speed and less risk make connections valuable. I think most people know this. The down-side is that it makes getting into some professions without connections more difficult, but that's the nature of getting started in some professions and the difficulties get worse as resources become more scarce, etc.

It couldn't be farther from "good ole' boys" or mafia or other nefarious connotations -- it is primarily convenience and risk management.

Posted by C*B | July 16, 2008 2:53 PM