I’ve long struggled for a distinction between ‘schmoozers’ and ‘power brokers’.
Schmoozers are those who have many connections, but who derive relatively little power from their relationships.
Power brokers are those with powerful personal networks.
Conversation
You can recognise schmoozers by their tendency to name drop. They tend to be good networkers. You may be dazzled by the people they know. But they hold relatively little power.
Meanwhile, such stories are told about power brokers: a16z.com/2010/04/06/ron
1
3
I think I’ve found an effective test. Ask yourself: “can I be harmed by this person’s network?”
If you can, it’s likely you are dealing with a person who derives power from their network.
If you can’t, this person is a schmoozer.
2
2
The harm test is useful because it demonstrates true power.
It’s easy to conflate the two: you may meet a schmoozer and think: ‘ah, this person might introduce me to people who matter.’ But in certain industries, introductions can be a lousy signal. They’re too easy to get.
1
A higher bar is what they can get their network to DO for them.
Ron Conway can get people to do things for him. It requires a reputation, built over decades, along with a long history of trading favours.
1
1
I think this criterion resolves something that I’ve long puzzled over: how do you differentiate the schmoozers from the power brokers? This is important to grok if you operate in relationship-driven markets (as it is in many markets in Asia).
1
1
It’s also a useful mental model to hold: as a random example, a VC with a large Twitter following, who boasts about their rolodex, may very well be a schmoozer; the measure is in what they can get their network to do for them, NOT who they know.
2
1
Replying to
Yes this is interesting. Horowitz hints at this but it seems a lot of the power of Conways network is in enforcement of codes of conduct by Conway. If you don’t behave in a way he deems appropriate you’re punished by being excluded.
2
1