沃顿商学院全套笔记-三十三-
沃顿商学院全套笔记（三十三）
沃顿商学院《实现个人和职业成功（成功、沟通能力、影响力）｜Achieving Personal and Professional Success》中英字幕 - P8：7_成功的两面.zh_en - GPT中英字幕课程资源 - BV1VH4y1J7Zk
When you unpack the word success for the first time， it's like a box and you open the box。
and you look inside。 The first thing you notice and you probably notice this in the Six Lives exercise because。
no matter which life you are reading， each of them had these two dimensions。
So when you open the box and look inside， what you find is two boxes inside the box。 One。
I call one box the outer life and the other box the inner life。
The outer life has to do with achievements， career， recognition， celebrity， respect from， others。
the roles you play and the social occupations that you found your way to。
And the outer life is what most people think of when they just hear the word success。 They think。
oh， someone's successful。 It means that they are the president of their bank or they graduated from college or they。
have some sort of invention that they made or something。 So the outer life is what the media covers。
The outer life is what magazines celebrate。 The outer life is what people get awards for。
And for that reason， everybody， often， not everybody， but people often think that that's， all it is。
But then there's this conundrum because if you take an average person on the street and。
you just ask them randomly， which I sometimes do just because it's my field and I'm trying。
to kill time in a grocery store line while someone's counting pennies at the very beginning。
of the line to pay for their fruit salad。 I asked somebody， you know， I'm doing a little survey。
what do you think success means？ And if they're willing to answer the question and they don't think I'm too weird。
then they， will be almost always inclined to say， well， I don't know。
it seems to me like success is， happiness if you're happy or successful。
And if you ask somebody what's your goal for your children， almost all of them would， say， well。
we just want them to be happy。 So on the one hand。
you've got this societal point of view of the box of the outer life。
where all that we celebrate is achievements and career and position and status。
And on the other hand， you have this inner life， the other part， which is what most people。
resort to when they kind of think about what they really care about。
And so there's just contradiction between these two sides of success。
And a lot of what we're going to do together in this course and that you will be trying。
to resolve in your own life as you go through your life is reconciling and integrating and。
balancing the outer life and the inner life and the credit you give yourself for having。
a life that is rich in its inner dimensions or highly recognized in its outer dimensions。
And what happens between those two？ I think it's often the case that we make choices in our lives that favor the outer life。
And then we have regrets and second guessing because we've come up short on the inner life。
I think it's hard to choose the inner life over the outer life sometimes because it looks。
so unimportant。 But of course， at the end of your life。
I think most people are pretty inclined to think that， they would not say， "Gee。
I wish I could have another day to be alive so I could work some， more。"。
I think they're probably going to be asking themselves for another day so they could be。
with the people they love for another day。 So these two sides of success are going to be with us throughout the course and how you。
consider them a big theme and how we're going to analyze， break down and think about all。
the different topics that we talk about。 So in our next session。
we'll be picking up some themes related to everything we've talked， about so far。 [end]。
[BLANK_AUDIO]。
沃顿商学院《实现个人和职业成功（成功、沟通能力、影响力）｜Achieving Personal and Professional Success》中英字幕 - P80：16_资源依赖与社会资本.zh_en - GPT中英字幕课程资源 - BV1VH4y1J7Zk
I want to get two basic ideas out before we dive into the details of informal networks。
One is resource dependence。 This is an idea that really began Jeff Efres career。
Jeff is someone we're going to talk about multiple times。
We're going to quote multiple times in this course。
And he began his work looking at this notion of resource dependence。 He summarizes it this way。
"Power is vested in us by the dependence of others。"。
And that dependence is a function of how much others need what we control， as well as。
how many alternative sources for that resource there are。
So it's really putting the heart of power on what other people need from us。 And therefore。
what it is that we control that they can't get somewhere else。
One thing he goes to some effort to elaborate is that this doesn't mean you have to own。
the resource。 You just have to have effective control over it。
So it's not always perfectly correlated ownership and control。
There may be other ways to have control and therefore power that don't involve ownership。
Some of those include possession， of course， but also access。
If you can control access to a resource， you have power over it。 If you can control how it's used。
if you can regulate。 And then a very important idea for our discussion of networks。
if you can broker， if you can， bring together those who need it with those who actually have the resource。
These are all sources of power and they're going to be very relevant as we talk about。
networks。 The second idea is just what social capital is。
Historically， we have thought about networks as kind of a subversive way to get influence。
It's an alternative to performance。 You can be good at your job or you can have a network。
You can think of it this way。
Performance leads to influence or networks lead to influence。 This is kind of the historical way。
In other words， networks and social capital had a bad reputation。
This old view has been replaced by a newer view which says that networks actually drive。
performance。 It's through networks that we perform。
Networks become a means of performance as opposed to an alternative。
You can think of it as networks， driving performance， then driving influence。 Very different take。
This says， look， it's not an alternative。 We know you have to be a good performer， but in fact。
part of being a good performer is， having that network。
You can think about this as two broad buckets， human capital and social capital。
We're accustomed to thinking about our employees or our talent as we manage it in terms of human。
capital。 Those are typically thought of as inherent individual ability。
Some folks are smarter than others。 Some are better educated。 Some are more experienced than others。
Increasingly， we recognize that what folks bring to an organization or bring to the table。
is their social capital。 In fact， people differ in their social capital。
They differ in their ability to coordinate and add value through other people。
Managers with more social capital actually get more returns on their human capital。
Certain networks that people have are of higher social capital than other networks。 In general。
having a good social network， having high social capital enhances a manager's ability。
to find and exploit opportunities inside the organization and outside the organization。
This is a more current view of thinking about networks and social capital。
It motivates us to dive more deeply into， "Okay， that's interesting。 What is it about networks？
What is it about social capital that makes some more valuable than others？"， [BLANK_AUDIO]。
沃顿商学院《实现个人和职业成功（成功、沟通能力、影响力）｜Achieving Personal and Professional Success》中英字幕 - P81：17_网络结构.zh_en - GPT中英字幕课程资源 - BV1VH4y1J7Zk
In this lecture， we'll drop into a little more detail on network structure。
Let's start with asking you a question。 What do you think the best position is to hold in a network structure？
What's your intuition for it？ And you might answer that by thinking about what do you believe the benefits of being。
in a network are？
What benefits are you looking for from your informal networks？
So people come up with all kinds of things on this， but the obvious ones are， you know。
let's be humans。
Affiliation， warmth， companionship， entertainment， that kind of thing。 Professionally。
we think about opportunity， resources， information。
And it's really that last one that we're going to focus on。
We're going to move towards some models here and a necessary part of working with a model。
is that you simplify the world。 And one of the simplifications that people make in this research area is we think about。
the benefits first and foremost as being information。 What about cost？
What do you consider the cost of being in a network？ And this is a little more ambiguous。
but one that most people seem to get and resonates， especially with our oversubscribed students。
are the time involved with maintaining your， network。
Most of us have difficulty spending as much time with the friends and professional contacts。
that we have。 And it's pretty obvious to us that there's a scarce resource there。 It's our time。
And so we can come up with other costs。 But for this exercise to understand the basic ideas in this field。
let's think about the， benefits being information and the cost being time。 So you might think。
all right， given that set up， what does it mean about where we want， to be？
Do we want to have a strong ally， for example？
That's one way of thinking about it。 I want to be wherever the network， the strongest person is。
It gives you an advocate in hiring and promotion， provides training， maybe a little mentorship。
maybe a little support。 It's a reasonable thing to say。 Or you might say， well。
I don't really care where I am。 I just want to be in a cohesive network。
I want to work with people who know each other， they understand each other。
Maybe they all coordinate very easily。 There are lots of benefits from that。
And so that's understandable as well。 Others say， I want a large network as many ties as possible。
This is probably the most common answer， the most intuitive answer。
If we're going to talk about networks， we're impressed with people who can maintain big networks。
Others say， well， size is one thing， but I'll take centrality。 I want to be at the center of things。
I have to be at the heart。 Everyone has to come through me。
That's reasonable as well。 There are benefits。 There are some costs to all of these things。
I think these are all relatively intuitive。 Because of that， I really want to emphasize another one。
a different one。 That is this notion of a structural hole。
Structural holes will unpack it in more detail momentarily。
These are basically centrally placed people with ties to those who are not cohesive。
The idea is that in networks， everyone's not connected to everybody else。
If you can sit between disconnected groups， you're spanning this structural hole。
Maybe there's some real value in doing that。 Let's look at a picture and make this more plain。
Here is， let's say， a network of six people。 Consider especially the person in the red dot there。
This is what is considered a dense network。 They're all connected to each other。
This is what might be considered a disconnected network。 A larger number of people。
but the big feature here that differs across the two is that the。
one on the left is dense and the other on the right is disconnected。
What happens when you remove the red dot？ The person in the position of the red dot。
you remove that person from the dense structure。 Everybody still talks to everybody。
Information flows the same way。 Not a whole lot changes。 On the other hand。
in the disconnected network， if you remove the person in the position of， the red dot。
all of a sudden these groups don't talk to each other at all。
The organization is in a very different place。 Information doesn't flow and something is going to function very differently。
Clearly， a person who is in the role of the red dot will play a very different role in。
the organization if they're in that dense structure when they're in the disconnected structure。
That gap， the gap that the red dot is spanning there in the disconnected structure is what。
we consider a structural hole or a disconnect。
We really want to talk about the benefits of that。
It's going to drive pretty much everything else that follows here。 A dense structure。
relatively few structural holes， people are highly connected。
They have mutual influence on each other。 This is often a cohesive， similar group。
They work closely together， might think alike。 They probably have what the economists would call or the sociologists would call redundant。
information。 They're often tapping a restricted set of resources。
Contrast that with the disconnected structure where there are many structural holes。
This more often reflects a non-cohesive heterogeneous group。
They provide opportunities in terms of differentiated， non-redundant information and they access。
a wider array of these resources。 This idea comes from research originally by Mark Granovett or on week ties and then really。
built out by the sociologist Ron Burt。 We want to dig into it in a little more detail。
Here's another picture to talk about how you might think as you grow a network from four。
to eight to 16 individuals， what it would look like if you did that in a very disconnected。
way versus a very dense way。 We're going to use the terms redundant versus efficient。
These terms， again， there's very much an economics base to the work on social networks。
It comes out of sociology， but this part of sociology is highly connected to economics。
These guys think about utility maximization。 The actors here are highly rational。
They're going to very much like economics talk about costs and benefits and they're just。
going to find the optimal solution given to costs and benefits。
They're going to use terms like redundant and efficiency。 These are modeling terms。
but let's explain to you what they mean。 The top there， it's network A， B and C as you move。
for example， from network A where you， have four connections and network B you have eight connections and network C you have 16。
connections。 In this case， every time you add someone to the network。
you're adding a new relationship。 You're going from four to eight to 16 relationships。 Great。
you've got more people， but we know there are costs associated with that。
It is what the economists and sociologists would call redundant ties。
Contrast that with the three on the bottom， A prime， B prime and C prime。
This person goes from four to eight to 16 always with four relationships。 In each case。
they have perfectly efficient networks。 They're spanning these structural holes。
This is a disconnected network and with the same four relationships， they're able to tap。
in to 16 people now because of the way they built it。
Sociologists would consider the bottom networks efficient and the top networks redundant because。
for much less at much less costs are tapping into the same information。
The assumption here is that the resources needed to maintain relationships， time and。
emotion are scarce。 I think that's a very reasonable assumption。 But given that assumption。
these guys are just kind of taking it to its extreme and。
asking， "Well， if you've got scarce resources， maybe you want to think about building a more。
efficient network。"， With these ideas out there， let's start talking about how networks might differ if you took。
them seriously， consider diversifying your network。 In this picture。
we begin with what is a very dense network。 A person has five relationships tapping into something like 10 or 12 individuals。
most of， whom are connected to other people in the same network。 And then after diversification。
after taking this theory really seriously， you've got the， same five relationships。
but now it taps into a much broader， maybe 20 plus individuals。
many of whom do not connect with other people。 And so you're tapping into more highly varied resources。
This is what the sociologists would claim are benefits of a more disconnected structure。
They would advocate even pursuing a more efficient network and eschewing redundancy that you。
see in the denser networks。 So there are many benefits， of course。
The people in the disconnected networks will be the first to know information outside of。
each pocket。 There are many benefits。 Partnerships if they want to。
they can play rival factions against each other。 And they might be sought out as a broker to introduce。
make contacts， make introductions， from one part of their organization to another。
There are many benefits。 They fall right out of it。 We don't want to ignore the cost。
What do you think the cost might be of this？ And we'll spend a little more time on that。
But I think it's fair to say that while extreme， these guys are mostly just making plain something。
that many of us do intuitively。 And in fact， I would push you to reflect a little bit on how is it that you're deciding。
where to spend your time， who to invest in， what relationships to cultivate， what relationships。
to let ride。 It's something that many people want to avoid。
It's a little bit uncomfortable to think about。 But the economic model and the sociological model takes us a starting place that we've。
got scarce resources。 We derive utility from things like relationships。
And we're essentially maximizers。 We're going to try to maximize how much utility we can get from our scarce resources。
You bring that model to relationships， and this is the kind of thing that we end up with。
I'm not going to say you should all think about it this way。 That you should act exactly like this。
That you should be as efficient to network as possible。 But I like the conversation。
And I like having it on the table。 Not least because I think we're all doing something like this anyway。
And let's put it。 Let's be a little bit more explicit about it。 Let's talk about the trade-offs。
And then let's see how we can exercise these ideas。
How we can use these tools in a way that isn't offensive to us。
We don't want to act in a way that isn't in the spirit of how we want to live。
We don't want to act in a way because the sociologist tells us this is more efficient。
just for that reason。 But can we borrow those ideas？
Can we borrow those tools and do it in a way that actually fits with the way we want to， live？
That's where we're coming from。 So a little more motivation for considering it。
There's work here by Ron Burt。 This was empirical work。 So far we've just talked theory。
Burt went out and ran a big study in a large organization that looked at how employees rose。
through the ranks there。 What rate of promotion they got over time。
And he compared that to the networks they had when they began。
What he found was strong relationship。 Social science goes this is a very strong relationship between those who had many disconnects。
So when a relatively disconnected structure compared to those who had few disconnects。
and more dense and formal structure。 Those with more disconnects showed a higher rate of promotion in the organization over。
time。
So this was kind of the beginning of what has turned into a huge industry and academic work。
on what are the empirical consequences of these various network structures。
And a little bit of motivation for well maybe it's not more than just theory。
Maybe these are things that do make a difference。 This idea that by tapping into a more diverse network we get information and opportunities。
that we wouldn't if we tapped into a more homogenous， more dense， more dense network。
So are there limitations？ Of course there are limitations。
We've named a few but we always want to mind these limitations and we want to in other parts。
of the course we unpack them more explicitly。 But if you think about， okay。
I'm going to maximize the efficiency of my organization， my network， what's the risk here？
If you're sitting there on the right hand side with four relationships into 16 people。
what's the risk？ Obviously one of the biggest risk is what happens if that one contact that you have in。
a cluster of four goes away？ What happens if that person moves or something goes wrong in that relationship？
Then your only bridge into that group is gone。 So this is fine with the sociologists。
They'll just say， look， we can still deal with that。
If you have an especially important cluster of people then you need to have more than one。
relationship in there。 You need some redundancy just in case something goes wrong。
They can drop that right into their model， run the utility maximizing thing again and。
it's going to give that kind of answer。 The more important the group。
the more important that you have some redundant ties into it。
Let me give you one small example from politics in the United States that ends with a quote。
that I love that captures this pretty well。 "Jim Wright was a longtime congressman from the Dallas Fort Worth area in Texas。
He was in Congress for 34 years and finally near the end of his career there he took over。
a speaker of the house。 He seceded Tip O'Neill who was a longtime and famous speaker of the house。
So Jim Wright goes in and he only the last two years and this poor guy was in Congress。
for 34 years and he gets indicted as Speaker of the House and has to resign。 Why did that happen？
This was the beginning of Newt Gingrich。 Gingrich took it on himself to run right out basically。
He wanted more power。 He wanted to undermine the Democratic Party and so he found ways to run him out。
Gingrich， there's a lot of detail on this and that doesn't matter as much for the moment。
But what Gingrich said about Wright is very relevant to us today。
Gingrich says that when he began initiating formal investigations into Wright， this is。
in late 1987， he said， "I've watched my colleagues body language toward me。 It's actually improved。
If I had gone after Tip O'Neill this hard， I would have been a social outcast。
Wright should get a solid A for performance。 As a technician of power， he's done a great job。
The downside is he's a loner still。 There's no deep body of affection for him。
Being a loner eliminates the safety net of both information and goodwill。 That line says a lot。
This is why we tell the story。 This line from Gingrich， "Hoo， whatever you feel about Gingrich。
he's got some insight， into power politics。"， He says about Wright being a loner eliminates the safety net of both information and goodwill。
This is something that applies to all of us。 It's not just about speakers of the house。
He puts it in just perfect way。 Information and goodwill is both of these things。 Of course。
that even that simplifies things too much， but that's a nice two bucket summary。
of what we're looking for in informal networks。 Okay， a few caveats before we leave it。
Birds approach， characterized very much by cost-benefit calculations， a lot of intentionality。
and strategy here。 There are trade-offs。 This is inherent to the traditional sociological model of networks。
We've presented very quickly kind of an extreme version of this。 We want to be provocative。
We want to push you。 We also want to stay kind of simple。
We want to give you a simple framework for thinking about this。
We want you to reflect on how much of you're doing a lot of this tacitly already。
This is more or less just a theoretical benchmark。
It's going to push us to think about the opportunity costs of the way we build our。
relationships and the way we move through organizations。 Thank you。 [end of transcript]。
[ Silence ]。
沃顿商学院《实现个人和职业成功（成功、沟通能力、影响力）｜Achieving Personal and Professional Success》中英字幕 - P82：18_应用.zh_en - GPT中英字幕课程资源 - BV1VH4y1J7Zk
So far， we've mostly talked theory。
Let's talk about what this thing looks like when the rubber meets the road。 How do you act on it？
What might you do with it？ To do that， consider a few example assignments。
opportunities that might come your way inside， an organization。
For example， would you want the following？ Would you want a desk by the bathroom？
This is something that most people have knee-jerk reactions against for the obvious reasons。
but give it a little bit more thought。 Give it especially thought。
given what we just talked through。 Why might you want a desk by the bathroom？
What might be the benefits of a desk by the bathroom？ Well， clearly everybody's going to come by。
basically。
So you're going to have an opportunity to interact with people you might not have an。
opportunity to interact with。 That's the basic idea。
And so we can generalize from a desk by the bathroom to a desk in a busy area， to a desk。
where people are often coming。 I've had people who spent interns， for example。
in organizations where they happen to sit next， to the boss， the big boss。
And they had access to executives that they never would have had access to。 And as a result。
got full-time jobs just because of where they sat in their internship。
I've observed my colleagues in various faculties over the years。
And some choose to sit at the ends of Hall， where it's a little quieter， maybe a little。
bit more space， maybe the view is leafier， and those who sit on the main corridor。
They have to put up with a little more noise， but they're much more in the flow of things。
And the research would suggest that's going to put them a little bit better footing and。
in thicker position with more of their colleagues and more of their relationships。
So that's a way of thinking about an opportunity you might not have taken otherwise。
And there are some other ones。 So what about an overseas assignment？
Well for some that would be an exotic thing， so that sounds fun。
What's the downside of an overseas assignment？
You might be forgotten。 You move from headquarters to the field。 People get busy at headquarters。
They might forget about you。 There's always that risk。
What are the benefits of an overseas assignment？ Well you start bridging these structural holes in a way that you can't if you're back in。
staff and you're back in headquarters。 You meet entirely new set of people and you have a chance to create those relationships。
in a way that you wouldn't have had you only visited for a day or you only talked by email。
The other thing an overseas assignment does， it guarantees that you'll be in the spinner。
again when you come off of that thing。 They've got to put you somewhere。
So you'll be considered again for another spot as you roll off of it。
Trade-offs but if you bring this structural holes idea and the need for diverse networks。
to it you might lean a different direction。 Finally， what about a seat on a task force？
Boss comes or maybe someone who's driving your boss and says you want to be on a committee。
got room to be on a committee。 This is not something most of us look forward to。
Most of us have all the work we need。 Don't need more committees。
In my experience there is no better way to get to know people in a diverse part of your。
organization， a new part of your organization than to work on a committee。
It doesn't mean you need to go load up and be on three or four of them but my best relationships。
with people from outside my department for example have come from one of two places。
Either I office across the hall from them randomly as we talked about with the desk by。
the bathroom or I was on some kind of interdisciplinary task force with them and I worked together。
with them， could have been for a month， it could have been for a year in a way that I wouldn't。
have had an opportunity to do so otherwise。 I host a radio show here on Sirius XM。
one of our business radio shows and there are four， of us， one from the marketing department。
two from the staff department and me from our， operations， information and decisions department。
I knew one of these guys before we started。 Now three years in。
there are three of my closest colleagues on faculty。 I never would have had that closest。
I never would have had that time with them had we not done this committee， this task force。
together。 So something to think about again， hopefully you'll think about these decisions differently。
because of this framework。 The framework the Burt and Granovetter and the whole field of sociology have given us。
it's a very parsimonious one， two parsimonious in some ways but it might push you to make。
decisions differently if you take it seriously。 So there are trade-offs here。
we're acknowledging the trade-offs， we're just pushing you a little。
bit to think about considering the uncomfortable thing。
We had these inclinations to do the comfortable thing。
Go back to the seating assignment discussion at the top of the module。
The comfortable thing when you walk into a room deciding where to sit for dinner or to。
sign up on a registration for a conference dinner is to find your friends and sit down。
and that's human and that's understandable。 If you understand though the returns to social network that includes diverse ties that is。
a little bit less connected， a little bit less dense then you'll start leaning against that。
comfortable thing and that's what we want to do today really。
We just want to push you to be a little bit less comfortable， a little less automatic。
and intuitive in your decisions about where you sit， what assignments you take。 Okay。
give you a couple of empirical observations。 One neat one comes from Adam Kleinbaum。
he did this as part of his dissertation in grad， school。
He was one of the very first sociologists to look at email as a source of data。
Now tons of people do this， it's become very common， it's very interesting research。
He was one of the first。 He went into a large information technology company。
they had 30 product divisions， global， presence and he sampled all email activity for 30。
000 employees for a three month period， of time。 What do you think you found？
Here's a picture and it shows traffic， email traffic between divisions and what this is。
showing is essentially all the traffic， whatever the percentage is， 95 plus 98 percent of the。
traffic is on the diagonal meaning from one division to the same division。
It's all within division traffic。 Barely anybody is talking to people in other divisions。
This is a huge opportunity for you。 This is a way of differentiating。
If you're the person in the organization who actually has relationships in these other， divisions。
communicates with people in these other divisions， you're going to have an information。
advantage that other people don't have。 Another way of looking at this and this is increasingly what people are doing。
bringing， this idea beyond traditional networks and looking for the benefits of diversity and other。
kinds of networks。 A few researchers recently published a piece in the MIT Sloan Management Review on a study。
they did of Twitter users and how innovative those Twitter users are compared to people。
who don't use Twitter and then most interestingly how innovative they are as a function of the。
type of Twitter network they have。 In particular they used organizational network analysis。
the kind of structures that we've， been looking at in the last few lectures at 10 work groups and five different organizations。
Very different organizations， consulting group， a manufacturing firm， consumer food group。
and higher ed and ask can we see any differences in how innovative an employee is as a function。
of the kind of network they have。
In this case we're talking about Twitter network。 So here is a picture of two employees that they looked at and different Twitter networks。
So the employee A， the one on the left had a Twitter network that they characterize as。
relatively disconnected。 Most of the people they're following on Twitter don't follow each other。
Some do of course but mostly they don't。 Contrast that with employee B whose Twitter network is highly dense。
highly connected。 These people that Twitter， that employee B is following actually follow each other。
So what is the consequence of that？ How would you interpret that in light of what we talked about with structural holes。
and。
Burt and Granite bedroom。 Clearly employee A is tapping into more information and more different kinds of information。
Interestingly what they found is when they looked at how innovative the employee was at。
work they found those with more diverse Twitter networks submitted more interesting ideas。
that were rated higher quality essentially more innovative ideas than employees whose Twitter。
networks were denser， more connected to each other。
So there are more and more examples like this where this principle of diversity and networks。
being a benefit is tested and found in more and more interesting places。
It's going beyond the traditional organizational analysis。
So in general this structural hole brokerage thesis what does it say？
It says we place a premium on non-redundant diverse context that there are significant。
returns to knowledge about what others networks look like。
If you understand and perceive others networks you have an advantage because you can tap into。
those that are you can strategically choose to be affiliated with those who offer new。
more diverse information。 And then finally it plays down the importance of key contacts knowing the right person。
This is kind of the conventional wisdom is you got to know the right person well。
If you put yourself in the better places and networks you're going to increase the likelihood。
of information coming through about those people meeting more people meeting people you。
wouldn't meet otherwise。 And in general again to emphasize this is all about non-redundant diverse contacts in all。
the different kinds of networks that you're building as you go through your professional， life。
[BLANK_AUDIO]。
沃顿商学院《实现个人和职业成功（成功、沟通能力、影响力）｜Achieving Personal and Professional Success》中英字幕 - P83：19_培养网络.zh_en - GPT中英字幕课程资源 - BV1VH4y1J7Zk
So we've talked about the theory of networks and kind of a high level look on optimal structure。
What about how you actually build these networks？ Let's talk in a little more detail about the doing。
the concrete on the ground building， of networks。 And in some ways this is going to offset in the theory it can come off pretty Machiavellian。
pretty strategic which most folks don't want to bring to their relationships。
This is going to be the kind of the counterbalance because this is about the actual living the。
relationship。 So how do you cultivate a network？ We too often think about networks being a product of unilateral action。
I just go out and do。 I create。 They're actually， as should be obvious。
because of their relationship， much more bilateral。
process of exchange。 And if it's bilateral then it's going to tap into some things we know about。
In fact， things have been studied for decades in psychology and sociology， in particular。
reciprocity， becomes one of the most important tools for you to use and to keep in mind as。
you go about cultivating your network。 So we are deeply ingrained。
We know this from decades of research now。 We're deeply ingrained to treat others the way they treat us。
So we tend to be generous to those who are generous to us and different to those who are。
indifferent to us and hostile to those who are hostile to us。 It's almost a knee jerk reaction。
We know from studies of humans of course， but we know how basic this is because we see。
the same behavior when you look at the chimpanzees， for example。 What does this mean？
It means that their value from controlling resources is not just the control， but also。
how you control them。 If you control them in a more generous way。
then you're going to be treated with more， generosity。 If you control them in a hostile way。
you might be controlling the resources， but you'll， be fostering hostility as you go。
So an obvious implication is to bargain， make trades， offer the quid pro quo。
This type of exchange can be helpful and in some organizations of course it's the way。
you do business。 But better and not so obvious is generosity， granting unrequested favors。
So quid cine quo。 This is talking about invoking reciprocity and yields and indebtedness that often there's。
a risk there because it's a debt that may never be repaid， but it can provide energy。
in a network and provide bigger returns longer term。
So let me give you a quick example， this comes from Antarctic exploration in the 1916 era。
This is World War I era。 There was a man who some of you have read about or watched movies about Ernest Shackleton and。
he had a big well known exploration on the ship， the endurance。 But before that。
Shackleton had become known as a leader who put his men first。 This inspired。
I'm reading from a book about Shackleton， this inspired unshakable confidence。
in his decisions as well as tenacious loyalty。 During the march back from 88 degrees south。
so not quite 90 degrees south， didn't make， the poll。 One of Shackleton's three companions。
Frank Wild， who had not begun the expedition as， a great admirer of his。
recorded in his diary an instant that changed his mind forever。
Following an inadequate meal of pemma-kin and pony meat， Shackleton had privately forced。
upon Wild one of his own biscuits from the four that he， like the others， was rationed。
daily。 Wild writes， "I do not suppose that anyone else in the world can thoroughly realize how。
much generosity and sympathy was shown by this。 I do by God I shall never forget it。
Thousands of pounds would not have fought that one biscuit。"。
This is Shackleton， a leader on this expedition。 This is Shackleton getting loyalty from Wild。
He could never have gotten any other way。 Wild went on to be one of his lieutenants on the following expedition。
the endurance， expedition。 But it's just an anecdote。 It's just an example。
but it's a brilliant example of the kind of reciprocity that true。
generosity inspires in other people。 What's the recipe？ Because psychologists have studied this。
There is a bit of a recipe。 Reciprocity is different because it's more emotionally and because of that can become a。
source of loyalty。 In order for this to happen， help or gift or whatever resource you're sharing。
it must， be costly。 In other words， it has to be a credible sacrifice by the giver。
He must be intended unselfishly that it's not tied explicitly or even tacitly to repayment。
Ideally it's not expected。 Wild didn't expect Shackleton to offer him one of his four biscuits。
Ideally it's difficult to repay in kind。 It's not a balance that can be cleared with a simple transaction in the other direction。
Of course， the best way to be perceived as generous is what？ To actually be generous。
There's a recipe here， but the best way to navigate the recipe is actually bringing true。
generosity to your exchanges。 You see this from other people as well。
There was recently a tweet from Aziz Ansari， the actor and comedian。
One of his Twitter followers asked， "Aziz， I'm an aspiring showrunner， actor， and improviser。
Can you give me some advice on how to get to be where you are？"， Ansari in response says， "Well。
work hard， make good shit， then try to make even better。
shit and be nice to people。"， I love seeing this kind of advice from folks who emphasize the being nice part because it's。
true that nice doesn't always pay off， but nice is a nice asset to have working in your， favor。
You want the world leading towards you。 This is advice from an actor。
We've also seen academics who have studied this。 There was a study by Miguel Lobo and his colleague on bringing network analysis to an organization。
but they also assessed likability。 In this particular test published in HBR。
they characterized employees in an organization， on two dimensions， competence。
high competence and low competence， and likability， high likability， and low likability。
They created four quadrants。 You go from the competent jerk quadrant， which is mostly avoided。
to the lovable fool quadrant， which is mildly wanted。 On the diagonal， of course。
she has a lovable star。 That's not interesting。 Everybody wants and everybody wants to be the lovable star or the incompetent jerk。
Again， kind of not interesting because no one wants to be that and no one wants to be around， them。
But how does the competent jerk and the lovable fool get traded off？
There's a tradeoff there， right？ You've got to accept a little decreased performance for affability or a little bit better performance。
with someone you don't want to be around。 What they found was people had a pretty strong preference between those two on the lovable。
fool。 If you had to make the tradeoff， the organization's on average。 Again。
this ties into the reciprocity notion， lean toward the lovable fool。
So let's move to some practical tips。
When you read enough cases and enough examples and of autobiographies， one of the things。
you do get from those are some concrete tips from people， little ways of living that people。
have found helpful in cultivating their networks。 So one comes from a study by Coddar on effective general managers。
He found they spent 50 to 60 percent of their time building and maintaining networks。
It's an amazing investment for those who are most effective。 A second， nice quote from Heidi Royzen。
a famed networker out in Silicon Valley， she says， be reliable。 In particular， quote。
"If a relationship is built on performance and consistency， you。
can actually get by with fewer interactions。"， This is great advice for us because most of us don't have enough time。
We don't have as many interactions as we'd like。 She's saying， look。
you can get by without having regular interactions as long as you。
are consistent when you have them。 Another tip we pick up from some well-known networkers is email your new contacts the。
next day。 We're meeting new people。 Too often we let that sit。 We let it go away。
We let it atrophy before we act on it。 Some say， as a commitment， I'm going to email。
I'm going to follow up in some way with my new contacts the next day。
It is both a commitment device to get it done， but it also ensures that you actually。
have a contact before you need them。 You bring your name back to them。
You have a little exchange with them before you need anything from them。 Another tip。
learn to say no and nicely。 This is something else we learned from Heidi Royzen who in recent years has been a venture。
capitalist and has to turn down lots of investment opportunities sometimes by people that she。
knows and wants to maintain relationships with。 She spends a surprising amount of time saying no。
The opportunity costs are often high， but reputation costs are too。
You don't know where that person is going to go after they say no， who they're going， to talk to。
People in general don't spend enough time managing their knows well and nicely。 Finally。
moving beyond quid pro quo。 A lot of folks think about exchange and quid pro quo organizations。
In this lecture， we've been advocating considering reciprocity and moving beyond reciprocity。
Whether it's because you want to get contribution to the world or you want to invest in the， future。
think of the services you render others big and small。 Think of those services as a portfolio。
Some are going to pay off， some aren't going to pay off， but it's a portfolio。
It's essentially social capital that you're carrying around。
One last framework to give you as we wrap up this lecture。
One way of thinking about networkers is what do we see rookies do， kind of level one beginners。
what do we see intermediates do and what do we see real experts do as they cultivate。
their networks。 The beginners avail themselves of opportunities when they're presented。
Maybe the committee assignment， for example， we talked about before。
This at least requires recognizing opportunities and not everyone does this。 This is something。
This is a start。 Level two， the intermediates。 What do they do？
They create situations that provide these opportunities。 For example， they create dinner parties。
Even creative dinner parties like a plus one where you invite people you know and then。
ask them to bring somebody that the rest of the group doesn't know。 This takes energy。
it takes thoughtfulness， it takes intentionality。 Again。
it's a step towards more advanced networking and not everyone is going to be up for them。 Finally。
level three， the advanced。 These are folks who do the recognition of veiling and creating。
but then they also expose， themselves to situations where opportunities may or may not arise。
This goes back to our seating choice discussion。 Where do you sit？
What's the risk associated with sitting at the beginning of a table as opposed to the， end？
You're exposing yourself to serendipity。 It may work out， it may not work out。
but by no other means can you access the possibility。
that someone's going to sit down and bring you something that you didn't even know existed。
One last thought on cultivating networks and that is that it's networks can't really be。
built to serve a purpose。 It takes time。 These things are done incrementally and you have to avoid the appearance of being too。
instrumental。 Of course， the best way to avoid the appearance of being too instrumental is not to be instrumental。
But really the advice that we're sharing here and the tips that we're sharing are best。
as a way of life。 Taking these things in， helping them affect your decisions。
you want them to affect your。
decisions every day and the benefits to accrue over weeks， months， years， really。
One of the single best pieces of advice in the entire course， as far as I'm concerned。
is to get to know people before you need them。 Many people feel a squeamishness about some of the topics we've been talking about。
Getting to know people， thinking about structural holes， because these are relationships after， all。
One of the best prescriptions for managing that squeamishness is get to know people before。
you need them。 So that's cultivated networks， we've been talking at the individual level so far。
Before we go too far， we want to stop and say， "How do things look from the organizational。
perspective？"， [BLANK_AUDIO]。
沃顿商学院《实现个人和职业成功（成功、沟通能力、影响力）｜Achieving Personal and Professional Success》中英字幕 - P84：20_组织视角.zh_en - GPT中英字幕课程资源 - BV1VH4y1J7Zk
So far we've been talking about networks and cultivating networks from an individual's。
perspective and in fact most of the course is built around that individual perspective。
We're trying to give you tools for navigating organizations。
But you also sometimes find yourself in more than managerial role and you'll need the。
organization's perspective。 So let's take a moment and think about what the implications of this social network theory。
we've been talking about。 What are the implications from the organization's perspective？
In particular， do we learn anything about org design from this？
Could we bring some of these ideas to org design？ And do we learn anything about how to assemble teams and how to staff teams as a result？
You always want to remember to flip that perspective。 While we're tooling you up as an individual。
sometimes you want to turn this around and， ask as a manager or as I think about managing individuals。
what are the implications？ So interdependence is a necessary part of organizational life but we need to mind those。
interdependence。 So we need to be careful about leverage others are developing。
All these tools we're giving you for placing yourself in the right place in an informal。
structure that can be a risk to the organization。 It can be a risk to you as a manager if someone who works for you is developing too much of。
that leverage。 So another more generous way to put it is you want to make sure that those who are in these。
high leverage positions who are spanning these structural holes， who are in these disconnected。
networks。 They're trustworthy and their interests are in line with yours and the organizations。
So if you pay attention to that you can align， you can get the right people in those positions。
and you can enhance the effectiveness of the entire organization。
Consider for example a case that a student brought to us a few years ago of a reorganization。
in a financial services firm who was based in New York but had heavy presence in Asia。
So before the reorganization they had all these different banking groups and they had。
three different Asian offices in Korea， China and Japan and there was no coordination between。
the banking groups in New York and the Asian offices a long way away。
With the reorganization they built an Asia group with a New York office so that all of。
the banking groups then coordinated their efforts with the distant field offices through。
that centralized Asian group in New York。 So clean things up。
ease is coordination makes a lot of sense from a network's perspective， though。
What are the benefits and the risks。 If you're taking what we said seriously in the earlier part of the lecture you would。
love to be in that position right。 It is a very picture of spanning a structural hole。
All the information that flows from the banking groups flows through you on the way to the。
Asian offices and vice versa。 But from an organizational perspective you might think that's a risk。
It is putting a lot of eggs into one structural basket and you want to make sure if you decide。
to go this way and you might do that for structural reasons you want to make sure that the right。
kind of person is in there that you can trust the person and that they're going to interact。
with those on both sides of that structural hole in a way that's productive and healthy。
for the organization。 So the presence of these disconnects can be good for individuals they can be risky for。
firms。 Mostly it means that information flow is impeded and you want to build connections to bridge。
that but you might take that too far of course because you don't want everybody with the。
same information totally homogenous you want to take advantage of that heterogeneity so。
there's a trade-off between how many of those holes you try to bridge and how many you let， sit。
Of course we also want to always mind the people that are sitting in those holes you don't want。
to grant too much power to people who sit in these high leverage situations。 What about staffing？
You've still got to make decisions on who to put in leadership roles。
If you take the network ideas seriously maybe we want to think about the social capital somebody。
brings to the leadership roles。 We historically have thought about experience and education and functional expertise。
What about social capital？ How can we do that？ Well there's an example from a classic example from crackcard enhancing about a manager who。
tried to use social capital but went about it in the wrong way。 So a quick illustration。
The managers in this situation used what they thought was a wise network a wise form of social。
capital and that was an advice network。 Who people in their organization went to for expert advice。
So they identified that person and put them in their leadership role。
They did not have a good experience with this because they hadn't considered the trust network。
A very different kind of network。 Who do people interact with？
Who do people actually trust in the organization？ That can be。
It doesn't have to be but it can be very different from those who they go to for advice。
So in this example while this firm struggled and mistook trust for advice it's actually。
an opportunity。 This shows the real opportunity with social networks especially these days with the。
proliferation of methodologies。 It's never been easier。
Social network methodology is allowing us to tap into attributes we haven't been able。
to observe otherwise。 Advice， trust， many others are coming。
So it's something that is going to be a real asset for organizations。
Beyond the tools that provides us as individuals it's assets for organizations to tap into and。
better understand their employees and therefore their future leaders。 [BLANK_AUDIO]。
沃顿商学院《实现个人和职业成功（成功、沟通能力、影响力）｜Achieving Personal and Professional Success》中英字幕 - P85：21_常见错误.zh_en - GPT中英字幕课程资源 - BV1VH4y1J7Zk
So in this lecture we'll talk about a few common mistakes that people make as they build。
a network and cultivate relationships。 The first and probably most important is the mistake of waiting to network until you have。
an objective。 The ideas we've been talking about today are much more about a way of life。
It is a means rather than an end。 You should think in terms of social capital。
You should think about your net， informal networks as social capital。
You build and cultivate just as you might build your human capital。
Your network is something you bring to any situation just like your education and it's。
something you should grow in and of for itself， incrementally over time。 Second common mistake。
focusing on networking up。 It's appealing， alluring even to try to get to know those who are already in positions。
of power but there are a few problems with this。 One， there's more competition。
It's the scarce resource and the folks in those positions of power have even less time。
to give than those at lower levels。 It also puts an undue focus on formal hierarchy and you forget if you're only looking at those。
in positions of power you forget the informal sources of power as well。
Then finally a very practical consideration is one of the greatest sources of your network。
is going to be who you know now and how they evolve over time。
The folks you were going to school with， the folks you were starting your organizations。
with will move into positions of influence over time。
If you've neglected them along the way then you won't have those networks when they're。
actually in the positions where they can really make a difference。 Third common mistake。
thinking that your formal position is unrelated to the informal network。
We've spent so much time talking about informal network。
We don't want to neglect that there are relationship consequences， network consequences that come。
along with your formal position。 So the job itself can drive the network。
In fact it's going to put you in proximity。 It's going to give you regular interaction with a distinct set of people。
It's important way to think about that job actually。
What is the informal network that's going to be impaired or facilitated by the formal， position？
It also takes a little bit of pressure off of the need to do the informal networking because。
you know that some of it's going to come from the formal side。
And then finally some folks make the mistake of thinking of a tie as an end point。
They want to get to know a person， they neglect the network that that person sits。
Everybody you meet is embedded in their own network。
Basically one of the things you carry away from this discussion is how everybody is influenced。
and everybody brings a resource and everybody brings a constraint of their network。
So when you're getting to know people it's not just that person， you're getting to know。
the context， the social context that they live and work in。 So it helps better understand them。
It also helps you better understand opportunities that might exist。 Also the constraints that exist。
One caveat here is the danger of treating people as a means to get to their network though。
They're on thin ice in many ways when you start thinking about people as a means to your， end。
So even though we want you to think about them as in the context of their network we don't。
want you to think about them only because of their network。 [BLANK_AUDIO]。
沃顿商学院《实现个人和职业成功（成功、沟通能力、影响力）｜Achieving Personal and Professional Success》中英字幕 - P86：22_关于社会网络的总结.zh_en - GPT中英字幕课程资源 - BV1VH4y1J7Zk
So a few key takeaways from our discussion of informal networks。
The first is that networks are social capital。 They're the analog to your human capital。
They're part of the portfolio that you bring to any situation， any organization。
The effectiveness of the network depends heavily on structural holes。 This is the new idea。
kind of the unusual counterintuitive， somewhat provocative idea， we're pushing today。
It's one of the most important ideas in network theory that the efficiency and effectiveness。
of a network， the power of that social capital， depends on structural holes， how disconnected。
the network is。 And finally that networks are earned， not built。
You can't do this stuff quite as ready-made， as intentional as we'd like。
This is something you need as a way of life。 You create energy by thinking about it in terms of reciprocity going beyond the norm。
of reciprocity。 Very much thinking about social networks as something you're doing on a daily。
weekly， basis， not because you have an objective that has to be met by it right away。
So the ideas we've been talking about on this topic connect to the rest of the course。
Understanding the other party， for example， is an idea that we've been talking about throughout。
the course。 It's critical for creating valuable resources， generating reciprocity。
strategically managing， your network， recognizing trade-offs。
This is something we talk about pretty much every step of the way。
It would be nice if these were tactics that you could use without worrying about using。
them too much or if you could use them all circumstances。
But life has a little more complicated than that。 Influence is a little more complicated than that。
There's going to be trade-offs associated with every choice that you make。 And finally。
intentionality。 The building networks in a way that maximizes their effectiveness requires a little more。
strategy and it might be a little more strategy than your comfortable bringing to your relationships。
One way to think about it。 We would urge you to be intentional about your network and to be unintentional about your。
relationships。 We understand the screamishness。 In fact。
we advocate having screamishness about bringing too much intentionality to relationships。
and individuals。 But I think we can sit comfortably about being strategically about the broader network and。
the decisions we make about jobs， about where we sit， about how we spend our time while still。
being unintentional and more human in the individual relationships that we build。 Early。
far from being distasteful， increasing influence to your network is one of the key。
ways to leverage your ability。 The development and use of power requires accomplishing and accomplishing almost always。
especially these days， requires working through other people。
You can't accomplish what others can if you can't work through other people。
As Jeff Pfeffer puts it， failures of implementation are almost invariably failures to build successful。
coalitions。 Thanks for watching。
[BLANK_AUDIO]。
沃顿商学院《实现个人和职业成功（成功、沟通能力、影响力）｜Achieving Personal and Professional Success》中英字幕 - P87：23_联盟简介.zh_en - GPT中英字幕课程资源 - BV1VH4y1J7Zk
In this lecture， we'll talk about coalitions。
And to start that， I want to give an example from recent news。
There was an announcement a couple of years ago of a big gas deal between Russia and China。
Here is the headline in the Financial Times and it looks to all the world like a two-party， deal。
But if you read the article， you see how often third parties influence the deal。 In fact。
one of the motivations for this was that Russia wanted to beat the U。S。 to the， Chinese market。
there is increasing interest in liquefied natural gas from the U。S。 in China。
Russia doesn't want that to happen， so they want to land this deal so they can preserve。
the market for themselves。 That's the influence of the U。S。 Causing stand。
they have to locate this pipeline。 They have to build it across countries to get from Russia to China。
The shortest distance would be through Causing stand。
Causing stand didn't want to be in on the deal because of their long-standing pseudo-dependence。
on Russia as a former member of the Soviet Union。 On the other hand。
Mongolia next to China wanted the pipeline。 They wanted perhaps a little less dependence also from their big neighbor。
China， but China， didn't want Mongolia the other pipeline。
So they'd take it all the way to the east。 So we can see even in this relatively simple example。
it looks like a big two-party deal， but in fact third party has influenced the motivation and the location of this thing。
That's where we're coming from today。 Coalition is an incredibly important topic。
They affect negotiations and organizations and individuals all the time every day。
And yet we don't really hear that much written about them。 We don't see them study that much。
We want to share with you some of the things we have seen and studied in the last few years。
So to do that， let's start with an example from a recent MBA talking about her use of。
coalitions in her organization。 So let's just walk through this。 She writes。
"In my last job I worked for an organization providing consultation and training。
to mental health clinics to help improve their clinical services。
We were being asked to create a new offering that focused on their business operations。
There were a few members of my team who were very experienced in providing clinical trainings。
to clinics and they felt strongly that we should use the same program model to deliver。
these business services。 However， as the sole client contact。
I heard from our clients that using this model wasn't， working for their business needs。
The most junior member of the team by at least 15 years when I tried to communicate this to。
the entire team and propose a new solution， I was quickly shut down and dismissed by the。
lead clinical expert。 So let's stop here and ask， are you familiar with this kind of situation？
I suspect many of you are。 You don't have formal authority。
You might be in a relatively less influential position and yet you want to somehow impact。
the decision making。 What is she going to do？ So she gives us an high illustration of coalitions and what follows。
She said， "Identify that two of my main team members who came from business and operations。
functions were more sympathetic to my opinions。 They just didn't want to actively disagree with the other executives。
preferring to pick， their battles on other issues。
I began to meet with these team members individually， sharing my ideas and refining them based on。
their feedback。 Once I had their buy-in， I set up meetings with the more conservative team members who。
came from a range of business and clinical backgrounds， telling them that the ideas had。
come from their fellow executives and asking them for their feedback and input。
I also engaged different team members in helping me build out parts of an idea that I knew。
aligned with their personal goals。 For example， I asked our financial expert to help me think through the strategy for revamping。
our financial modeling training and lead the training for the initial pilot。
When I finally presented a new proposed program model to the entire team， only the clinical。
lead had never heard the proposal before。 And when everyone else backed the idea。
he acquiesced as well。 I used the strategy of individual check-ins。
idea attribution and goal alignment to push， through two new major programs throughout my three years。
In one of our last team meetings prior to leaving my job， our clinical lead declared our latest。
program had been our biggest and best program rollout yet and that he had known from the。
beginning that it was destined to be a success。 So here we have a fantastic example of using coalitions from a relatively powerless position。
in order to actually exert influence in their organization。
This is the kind of thing we want to study and learn how to do in today's lecture。 [ Silence ]。
沃顿商学院《实现个人和职业成功（成功、沟通能力、影响力）｜Achieving Personal and Professional Success》中英字幕 - P88：24_联盟类型.zh_en - GPT中英字幕课程资源 - BV1VH4y1J7Zk
The philosophy of coalitions is pretty intuitive and stated well by the political philosopher。
Edmund Burke。 Whilst people are linked together， they easily and speedily communicate the alarm of any。
evil design。 They are enabled to fathom it with common counsel and to oppose it with united strength。
Whereas， when they lie dispersed without concert， order or discipline， communication is uncertain。
counsel difficult and resistance impractable。 So clearly there are benefits and this is a pretty high minded intellectual description。
of it。 But coalitions are also pretty fundamental。
When we want to understand how fundamental human behavior is， we look for it in the primates。
We look for it in lower forms basically。 We found by studying behavior in primates all kinds of psychological behavior that because。
we see it there， we know that it is more fundamental to us。 We are hardwired to do these things。
Such it is with coalitions。 So here is a quote from Franz Duwale。
one of the best known primeontologists out there， has a great book called Chimpanzee Politics。
He says， "From experience， the conflicting partners， the conflicting chimpanzee partners。
no one who side the third party stands。 Consequently。
the third party can influence the situation by a mere look or gesture of， support。
Dependents on third parties play such a prominent role in the chimpanzee hierarchy that the。
basic relationships are completely overshadowed。 This is especially dramatic given how hierarchical the chimps societies are。
It's an influence that coalitions influence their behavior even there。
It shows from Edmund Burke down to the chimps how important and fundamental coalitions are。
to human behavior。 To dig into the kinds of coalitions and the ins and outs of coalitions。
let's start with， an example。 This example is from a negotiation exercise called Three Way Organization。
long-standing， exercise out of the Harvard Negotiation School。 We still use it every year。
In this negotiation， there are three parties， Neptune， Pluto， and Venus， and they are trying。
to decide how to divide up a pot， pot of money， pot of points， whatever you want to， call it。
If they work together as a three-team organization， they have 24 points to divide。
They could also just decide to work in twos， in which case there are different payoffs。
Neptune and Pluto work together。 They have 22 to divide amongst themselves。
Pluto and Venus work together。 They have 12， and then Venus and Neptune work together。 They have 18。
We've laid the payouts out for you here on this little chart， so you'll see。 From these payouts。
it looks like Neptune has more power in this negotiation。 They're the bigger party。
I want to ask what you would do in this exercise。 We're not going to do this exercise today。
but it motivates some of what we're going to， talk about。 If you were one of the smaller parties。
Pluto or Venus， let's put you in the smallest position。 Let's put you in the Venus position。
How would you go about this？ You would know that it's a coalition exercise。 Going in。
you might think， "Do I form a coalition with Neptune， or should I form a coalition， with Pluto？"。
Should I try to form a coalition with Pluto？ How do you think you would go about that decision？
How would you even think about that decision？ You can go through the math and the points and think about it that way。
but you might， also think about the individuals。 Who is in the role of Neptune？
What relationship do I have with them？ What kind of trust do I have with them？ The same with Pluto。
Take all this information in and then you would make a decision。
Am I going to place my chips with the big guy， Neptune， or the smaller guy， kind of medium。
science person， Pluto， as I go in and try to form a coalition。
That decision captures the two main kinds of coalitions that we see in the world， one。
being the balance of power。 This is the longstanding dynamic we see in political science where the presence of a。
single dominant power leads smaller powers to band together。 In our example。
we just came from Pluto and Venus want to work together to counterbalance， the bigger Neptune。
But there is another kind。 Bandwagening is the other kind of coalition where the smaller powers buy with each other。
in order to ally with the single dominant powers。 This is a Venus saying， "Hey。
why might I want to go to little Pluto when I can go to， big Neptune， more likely to win that way？"。
These are the two kinds that we see and this is often the decision that you face when you。
are a smaller party trying to decide what kind of coalition to form。
How do you know which way to go？ If you're going to form a coalition。
do you go with balance of power or do you go with， bandwagening？
Sometimes you're just observing this happen with other people。
So how do you predict what's going to happen？ Is it going to be a balance of power or coalition or is it going to be a bandwagening coalition？
If we can understand that， we'll better understand coalitions。 So broadly。
there are two bases for coalition。 One is interest。
Think of this as kind of the economics of an arrangement。 Another is identity。
You can think of this as kind of the emotions of the arrangement or the coalition。
So let's dive into both the interest-based coalitions and the identity/emotions-based， coalitions。
So an example of interest-based comes with the very colorful name Baptist and Bootleggers。
This goes back to 1980s research on U。S。 legislation and the particular example they're。
talking about are in the U。S。 They're called blue laws where the distribution of alcohol is restricted on certain days of。
the week。 So in some states or some cities， you can't sell beer and wine on a Sunday。
So where does this come from？ Why do these laws， some of these laws still exist by the way。
So the analysis says that basically there are quote， "babdas" are not necessarily actual， bad best。
but they are religious leaders。 And what they bring to the coalition is the moral high ground。
the explanation of the cause。 But they're also the bootleggers。
And these are the people with the financial interest in making this happen。 So with these blue laws。
they are the bar owners。 They would love for there to be no other place to get alcohol except bars on Sundays。
And so their interest is financial。 And to make that happen， they can provide campaign funds。
So you have this very powerful coalition。 You wouldn't necessarily expect together。
They don't seem like the kinds of people that would work together。
But because they have common economic interests， they form a strong coalition。
And of course it's effective because from the legislators' perspective， you have the。
moral high ground saying you're doing it for religious reasons， but you also get campaign。
funds because the bootleggers can provide that as well。
The Bruce Yandall who created this theory back in the early '80s says durable social。
regulation occurs when it's demanded by both of two distinctly different groups。
So it takes that complementarity but with a common economic interest to form a very strong。
coalition。 So more recently， we've seen examples such as green energy where big financial interests。
have come into back green energy， especially in say California。
And it looks like it's for environmental reasons。 But in fact， if you look at the reasons。
there's regulatory advantages and actually they're， in there for investment。 That's what they do。
of course。 But because they've got kind of the moral high ground and the financial interest， it's。
a complementary and strong economic based coalition。
So there's a very rational calculus available when you're making these decisions based on， interest。
What's the expected value of allying with A， party A， for example， versus the expected。
value of allying with party B？ So just go through the math。
What's the probability that A wins times the payoff to me if A wins versus the probability。
that B wins times the payoff to me if B wins。 So this sounds very rational and very narrow。
And that's the claim here that many coalitions get done on exactly those grounds。 In short。
which party is likely to win and how will I be treated as a partner to that。
party if they do。 So one of the challenges with these kinds of coalitions is that they're dynamic in that。
people are kind of always hopping around trying to find a better deal。
There's a great quote from Speaker Boehner， a longtime speaker in the US House who said。
"I like to describe my job as trying to get 218 frogs in a wheelbarrow long enough to， pass a bill。
It's hard to do。 218 being the one vote majority to pass legislation in the House。
The reason it's hard is because he might get everyone lined up for a moment and then somebody。
else is going to start trying to poach them。 And because they're doing this calculus。
they might be able to raise the anti just enough， that they'll jump out of the wheelbarrow and form a coalition with somebody else。
"， My favorite example， one of the most powerful examples， comes from a study of alliance formation。
in civil wars。 So this was done in recent years looking at civil wars， multi-party civil wars。
So there's room for coalitions over an almost 200-year period of time。
So the cover here is from Afghanistan， but in fact， they looked at civil wars in 53 different。
areas。 And this is Fotini-Christia。 She writes， "History's replete with warring leaders changing sides。
This is surprising to us because we tend to think， especially from the cover here， that。
these would be religious-based conflicts， very moral， tribal-based conflicts。 But in fact。
they observe that warring groups will aim to side with the winner so long as。
they can have a credible guarantee that the winner will not strip them of power once victory。
is accomplished。 There appears to be no such thing as an impossible alliance。
This is great research。 This is not intuitive。 This is not what we would have expected。
But they find that interest， this rational calculus， drives behavior so much that it can。
overcome these very seemingly deeply held identity issues。 I've talked with special forces students。
students who previously were in the special forces。
who talk about being in the field and seeing men actually change sides during battle as。
the calculus changes during battle and one side looks more likely to win。
Now the other form of coalitions， the other basis on which coalitions get formed are identity。
More emotion-based， could be loyalty。 And it leads one to sacrifice narrow economic interest in service for these other objectives。
An example also from the military world comes from the UK and France alliance in World， War I。
So they did not have a formal treaty when World War I started。
They had some previous relationship but they didn't have a formal treaty。
And when Germany invaded Belgium and then France， the UK had to decide whether to come。
into the war on the side of France。 This is a memo from inside the Foreign Secretary Office in Great Britain。
And they write， "The argument that there is no written bond binding us to France is。
strictly correct。 There is no contractual obligation。 But the Entente has been made， strengthened。
put to the test and celebrated in a manner， justifying the belief that a moral bond was being forged。
The whole policy of the Entente can have no meaning if it does not signify that in a。
just quarrel England would stand by her friends。 This honorable expectation has been raised。
We cannot repudiate it without exposing our good name to grave criticism。"。
So you see this is such a different basis for the coalition than the calculus we talked。
about before。 In the morality， this is honor。 And indeed。
Great Britain did join on the side of France。 We don't know what influenced this memo head but we know that there were people making。
exactly this kind of argument。 Here's the same story in kind of visual terms。
Emotions can play a big role， drive the abused parties， the smaller parties together to。
team up an exact revenge。 So broadly we have this interest versus identity。
Interself interest or economics means the coalition candidate pool is broad。
You can bring anybody in as long as you can show that their economic interest are well， served。
But it means that your ties to anybody you do bring in are relatively weak， relatively， shallow。
Alternatively， you can appeal to identity or emotion which provides a much stronger connection。
but it greatly restricts the number of people you can ally with。 These are the trade-offs。
There's no right answer。 There's no better way to go。
There's two different ways we see coalitions formed。 Both matter。
One of the bottom lines is that it's risky to neglect either one。
They're both opportunities for you to form a coalition and they're also risks to you。
from others trying to post your coalitional partners。 Thank you。 Thank you。 [BLANK_AUDIO]。
沃顿商学院《实现个人和职业成功（成功、沟通能力、影响力）｜Achieving Personal and Professional Success》中英字幕 - P89：25_联盟案例.zh_en - GPT中英字幕课程资源 - BV1VH4y1J7Zk
So let's look at two quick examples from two very different places。 One is from television。
the sitcom Friends。 This was a huge kind of a surprise hit in the 90s and before the show。
started these six actors were essentially unknown and as is typically done on television。
they negotiated their contracts individually。 However， the show really took off and then。
the interesting thing that happened is that they started negotiating collectively。 It。
was a single unit negotiating with the production company instead of six individual actors and。
interestingly they all took equal pay。 So despite having quite a bit of disparity between the。
celebrity of say Jennifer Aniston they were actually paid the same。 So in years three。
through ten this was the arrangement and by the time they were done they were paid a。
million dollars per episode per actor and they shot 20 or 24 episodes a year so these。
guys were making 20 million dollars each through a coalition。 Now why would they do， such a thing？
Why do you think they might accept equal pay？ Do you think they are better， off in the long run？
Why would that be？ So some people think that it changed the dynamic。
on the set that it preserved the relationships in a way。 Maybe they would never have made。
it to year ten and done as well if they hadn't gone in with that kind of equal arrangement。
But by what other means other than a coalition would matle block have ever been paid the same。
as Jennifer Aniston。 Another example is from the tuna fisheries in the South Pacific。 This。
example comes from a Slate magazine article and the story with the tuna fisheries is that。
historically the fleets the big fleets have come down from Japan or the UK or the US and。
gone in to these local the local waters the territorial waters are on these islands and。
when you do that you have to pay and they would basically just auction these islands off against。
each other who's going to charge us the least to allow us to fish in their waters。 And the。
islands because this is one of the most important sources of revenue didn't have much bargaining。
power and they got these fishing rights bid down and for years this was the arrangement。
And then finally they realized well we need to work together essentially we need to form。
a coalition and they did that and started bargaining as a block and completely turned。
the bargaining table。 So now they were auctioning the fleets off against each other asking who。
was going to pay the most to fish in our territorial waters。
And they found they had so much bargaining， power that they were able to improve the health of the fisheries。
In particular a tuna fleet， can fish in international waters nobody can restrict that but that's damaging to the tuna。
fisheries down there because you know tuna don't know whether they're swimming in territorial。
waters or international waters。 If you want to manage the the fishery as healthily as possible。
you want to restrict in some way what's going on in the international waters。 By forming。
this coalition the countries had so much bargaining power they were able to enforce。
restrictions on what the fleets could do even in the international waters。 A fantastic。
example of the power of coalitions and a smaller party seeing that and flipping the negotiation。
table as a result。 Thank you。 [BLANK_AUDIO]。
沃顿商学院《实现个人和职业成功（成功、沟通能力、影响力）｜Achieving Personal and Professional Success》中英字幕 - P9：8_文化和家庭在塑造你的成功价值观中的作用.zh_en - GPT中英字幕课程资源 - BV1VH4y1J7Zk
So we've talked about the box that success is and that inside the box you find two other。
boxes， the inner life of happiness and fulfillment and the outer life of career status and achievement。
But you might ask yourself how did this box get filled up？ Who put it all there？
And the most important next layer you have to penetrate as you begin thinking about what。
success really means to you is the sources of these values。 And you immediately confront a very。
very important cultural source for the values。 And within any given culture。
your family will be like a prism that will focus certain aspects。
of the cultural values that are sailing it to your families into your sets of assumptions。
about what you ought to be doing and what counts and what doesn't count and what will。
earn you praise or what will earn you disappointment。 So culture and family。
two really important things and very difficult to get a grip on。
There was a novelist， David Foster Wallace， a modern novelist who gave a commencement。
address at Kenning College in 2005 and he told the story that I think illustrates why。
this is such a difficult subject to get a grip on。
And in the story he said that there was an old fish that was swimming along in the water。
and two teenage fish came swimming around and passed him going the other way。
And as the two teenage fish went by him， the old fish said to them， "How's the water？"。
And the two teenage fish were a little upset with being spoken to by a stranger and they。
didn't really know what to do so they just kept swimming。
But about ten yards away the one teenage fish turned to the other teenage fish and said， to， "Well。
what's water？"。
Now that question of course is the kind of question that teenage fish would have more。
trouble answering because the older you get， the more experience you have， the more different。
life events have happened to you， the more you become aware that you're swimming in your。
own culture with your own cultural assumptions and that you are motivated by， impel by， almost。
obsessively seeking validation within the cultural and family values that you've been。
surrounded by your whole life。 They are part of you just the way that your heart is part of your body。
So separating yourself from that， getting perspective on that so that you can embrace， modify。
reject the cultural and family values that have defined success for you， a very。
important part of the journey that studying the subject and thinking about success has， in store。
[BLANK_AUDIO]。
沃顿商学院《实现个人和职业成功（成功、沟通能力、影响力）｜Achieving Personal and Professional Success》中英字幕 - P90：26_联盟的处方.zh_en - GPT中英字幕课程资源 - BV1VH4y1J7Zk
All right， in this lecture we want to talk about prescriptions for coalitions。
What are the best practices we see out there？ How do you make a coalition？
How do you hold a coalition？ We have four big ones for you。 Castowydnet， consider the metagame。
have the meeting before the meeting， and finally， give to get。
Let's talk a little bit about each one of these。 So Castowydnet。
want to quote from Bruce Bueno de Mosquita。 He is a professor at NYU who， among。
in addition to doing research， he consults to large companies， and countries。
trying to predict what's going to happen on these big hard questions like。
what's Iran going to do around nuclear bombs， what's the Pakistan military going to do。
that kind of thing。 In his book， he writes， "In essence。
the model looks for possible groupings of players who。
would be willing to shift their positions toward one another if they thought that doing so。
would be to their advantage。 In short， the model predicts coalitions。
His model often produces surprising results。 It methodically works through not only the obvious coalitions we know and expect。
but， also the invisible ones that we don't。 Years appearing at his model have shown him that conflicts almost always have hidden solutions。
One of the things that's going on with his model is that he's looking as broadly as， possible。
He's considering all possible coalitions。 This is not what we do naturally。
And so one of the big prescriptions is think broadly， think creatively about coalitional， partners。
Our colleagues at Harvard， Lax and Sebanius， in one of their books on negotiation in 2006。
suggest who some of these parties might be。 So if you're negotiating with somebody， for example。
you might want to think beyond just， the person who has to give formal approval。
think about those who influence the decision， makers who might be in their ear， for example。
who has the highest value for what you offer。 This is something that's terrifically important to entrepreneurs who are trying to sell into。
an organization， a product or a service， who is it in that organization who would most。
benefit from that product or service， possible coalitional partner， who can block decisions。
who has misaligned incentives， who has to implement something that you negotiate。
These are all critical members。 They might be helpful in getting over the hump or they might be necessary to actually。
get something done。 Second prescription， consider the meta game。
So you miss opportunities if you frame negotiations too narrowly。
If you think you're only negotiating or trying to influence on a very particular matter and。
you forget all the matters that are related to it that others might be thinking about。
So if others are thinking about a broader coalition， broader interest， you're going to be exposed。
to people they can bring to the table that you're not thinking about。
So what are additional grounds for coalitions？ Well， we've named the economic side， the interest。
the narrow， rational interest a party might， have， but they're also those emotional considerations。
So identity， loyalty， in some cases spite or anger， in some cases， beneficence。
So what's critical is that you know what the other party cares about。
They don't necessarily care about the same things you do。
You may think it's a strictly economic negotiation or a strictly economic coalition， but in fact。
they might have these emotional or identity-based interests。
Those are missed opportunities for you and it's an opportunity for somebody else who's。
working against you。 Prescription number three， this is a very basic one but perhaps the most important one。
Have the meeting before the meeting。 I'm always surprised to find professionals who don't use this all the time。
This needs to be in your toolbox for sure。 So negotiations are always influenced。
often constrained and sometimes even settled long， before the official talks begin。
So in these advanced meetings you're going to do some intelligence gathering， temperature， taking。
credibility building， groundwork laying， and some you're doing alliance creating。
In this picture we see a couple of guys sitting in a bar， in a corner that doesn't necessarily。
have to be the style of meeting。 This can be just swinging by somebody's office。
knocking on the door， bumping into them at， the water cooler， texting them， giving them a call。
dropping an email。 These all count as meeting before the meetings。
These are ways of touching base with parties before you actually sit down。
There's a great quote from Churchill， "There is only one thing worse than fighting with。
allies and that is fighting without them。
You want to know before you get into the meeting whether or not you have allies with， you or not。"。
Prescription four， the fourth and final prescription， give to get。
So this ties into a topic that's been studied in psychology and sociology for decades and。
the human nature is we're inclined to respond in kind to other people。
Been talked about very well by Adam Grant in recent years in his book， Give and Take， but。
the general observation is that regardless of the form behavior takes， positive form， favors， gifts。
respect， and negotiation concessions， we're inclined to give back in kind the supplies。
to all negative behavior as well。 So when we mistreat people or when they mistreat us。
we're inclined to respond。
This is an opportunity for forming coalitions and it's a risk if you're using these negative。
behaviors that will get in the way of your forming coalitions。 So this again we see in the apes。
let's go back to Franz de Wall and his study of chimpanzees。
looking at how fundamental coalitions are and how fundamental this reciprocity behavior is。 He says。
"Champions' group life is like a market in power， sex， affection， support， intolerance。
and hostility。 The two basic rules are one good term deserves another and an eye for an eye。
a tooth for。
a tooth。"， So again， we're wired this way， we're hardwired this way。
we know it from watching it in the， champs。 Another example from de Wall talks about a primatologist。
Tushashada Nasita describing， the case of an alpha chimp in the Mahali Mountains who maintained his rank for an extraordinarily。
long time over a decade through an elaborate system of bribery。
So a decade's ridiculous because champs are usually at the top of the hierarchy for 18。
months or so。 So it's something like a three standard deviation event。 How do you do it？
He distributed meat selectively to those individuals who support he could use against。
potential challengers。 So apes are doing this， apes are using coalitions and it's making a difference in their influence。
This is clearly something available to us。 One of the implications is that you might bear some costs in order to have a more stable。
sustainable coalition。 So you might improve your long term position by accepting lower。
perhaps what even might， be seen as unfair payoffs in the short term。
So this may be one of the reasons we do see coalitions where the disparity in payoffs。
is more equal than you might expect。 So one of my favorite examples comes from university athletics。
collegiate athletics in， the United States。 Teams compete as a part of a conference。
So schools group together in conferences and one of the things schools have to do is。
decide how to share their television revenues。 This is the primary source of the revenues。
A huge percentage of what they receive from college athletics come from these big television。
contracts。 How do you divide that money across all the different members of the conference？
Take for example two organizations in two different parts of the country in different。
conferences in the University of Texas and the University of Alabama。 So Alabama Crimson Tide。
this is the most successful football program of the last 10 or 20 years。
and one of the most successful of all times。 They're kind of the flagship program of the Southeastern Conference。
And the Southeastern Conference is known as being a stable， successful， probably the best。
football conference in the country in the last 10 or 20 years。
How do they divide their television revenues？ The primary source of revenues。
They divide it equally。 Equals parts to each school。 So from big， strong Alabama down to little。
maybe not so strong， Vanderbilt， they receive， the same television monies。 In fact。
they have such a strong coalition that another equal share goes to the league， office。
So much they value their coalition and they pay more equally there than you might expect。
As a result， they have this incredibly， as a result of other things as well。
But one of the factors is this equal split， they have this strong coalition。
Contrast that with the University of Texas and the big 12。
Known as being one of the most unstable coalitions。
They've lost university affiliates over the last few years as they migrated away。
One of the reasons schools often give， one of the reasons observers think this happens。
is because they don't equal， they don't share their money equally across the school。
So the University of Texas， kind of the flagship organization of big 12， has always demanded。
and received far more pay from the television contracts than the other schools。
We think that this is one of the reasons that they have a weaker one。
Now Texas could argue it's fair， it's only fair that they get paid more but it comes， at a cost。
It comes at the cost of a weaker coalition and in the long term they may end up with less。
We don't know for sure but it's a great illustration of you might take a little bit less as the。
bigger party at the table。 You might take a little bit less to secure a stronger coalition and a more sustainable。
long term pay off。 So four prescriptions， cast a wide net， consider the metagame。
have the meeting before the meeting， and give to get。 [BLANK_AUDIO]。
