It’s long been a cliche that to get ahead in life, it’s more important who you know than what you know.

Indeed, some studies have suggested this may even be one factor in the continuing gender pay gap, with men found to be more effective networkers than women.

The limitations of networking

A recent study highlights, however, the limitations of ones network.  It found that a strong network can provide a short-term boost to our career, but in the longer term we can often be punished for getting a leg up via our network.

The focus of the study was the National Football League.  The researchers examined the movement of coaches over a 31 year period and found that when junior coaches worked under a lauded coach, they were more likely to receive a promotion than their peers who worked under less reputable coaches.

The authors suggest that this is because of a halo effect whereby the reputation of the senior coach spills over onto the junior coach, making teams more comfortable in hiring the younger man.  What’s more, this is especially so when little is known about the young coach.

Fading halos

Alas, it seems this quickly fades, with these coaches then faring worse in the longer term than their less connected peers.

“Surprisingly, even though these legendary head coaches no doubt choose their junior coaches carefully, those who have not had the benefit of working with these living legends tend to have superior career outcomes relative to the initially-advantaged junior coaches,” the authors say.

“People are hired by high-reputation head coaches using what seems like a rational process using a defined set of criteria but we’ve found these criteria aren’t predictive of outcomes. The key indicators used to hire coaches initially, such as being quarterbacks in college, give that person status but don’t help with promotion down the line. Being a quarterback is indicative of leadership potential but isn’t linked to coaching promotions,” they continue.

This was a finding echoed in a second study that was published earlier this year.  It found that when people believed someone to be the recipient of unfair promotions, they were often stigmatized by their peers.

Interestingly, this is usually the case regardless of how well qualified they may be for the job.  The son of the vice-president was rated as less capable than the other candidates, even when their qualifications and experience would appear to make them more so.

“In all three qualifications conditions, the nepotism beneficiary was, in an absolute sense, qualified for the position since he met, or exceeded, the minimum qualifications for the position and yet, despite this, was still viewed more negatively than the non-nepotism hire,” the researchers say.

Which may go some way to explaining why those who get ahead through their network don’t stay ahead for very long.