Everyone gets anxiety about networking

Let’s talk about something nobody likes to admit: networking makes most of us anxious. I hate it. You probably hate it too. And yet, we’re constantly told it’s essential for career success, especially in academia and research.

I’ve been thinking about why networking feels so uncomfortable, and I think I’ve figured it out. It’s not networking itself that’s the problem—it’s unclear value exchange.

What networking actually is

Strip away all the LinkedIn advice and career coaching nonsense, and networking is fundamentally about value exchange. That’s it. You have something of value, someone else has something of value, and you trade.

The value can take different forms:

Emotional value: This is what we call friendship. You hang out, have fun, relax together. Both parties get enjoyment from the interaction. Simple.

Information value: Someone knows people you don’t know. They know things you don’t know. They have access to opportunities you don’t have access to. In research and professional contexts, this is often what we’re actually trading.

Resource value: Time, money, connections, equipment, data access, computational resources. Tangible things that can advance your work.

Capability value: Skills, expertise, labour. What you can actually do that’s useful to others.

People at higher positions also network “downward”—not out of charity, but as investment. They’re identifying capable people worth backing, because those people might provide value later, or because supporting them reflects well, or because it strengthens their network.

Why networking feels awful

Here’s my theory: networking anxiety comes from mismatched or unclear value exchange.

You feel uncomfortable when:

You can’t identify what value the other person is offering you
You’re not sure what value you can offer them
The value exchange feels unbalanced
You want something from them but don’t know what you can give in return
The value being exchanged isn’t actually what you want

That conference small talk that makes you want to hide in the bathroom? That’s probably because neither person has figured out if there’s any real value to exchange, but you’re both going through the motions anyway.

That coffee chat you keep putting off? Probably because you’re not clear what you’re asking for or offering.

That feeling of being “used” after helping someone? That’s unreciprocated value exchange.

Make it explicit

Here’s what I’ve learnt (mostly from making it awkward): the fastest way to be comfortable with networking is to make the value exchange explicit.

Not in a transactional, cold way. But in a clear, honest way.

Instead of vague “let’s grab coffee sometime,” try:

“I’m exploring X research direction and I know you’ve worked on Y. Could I ask you some questions about Z? In return, I’d be happy to share our dataset on…”
“I’m applying for X and would value your perspective. I don’t have much to offer in return right now, but I’d be keen to help with Y if you ever need it.”
“I think there’s potential collaboration here—you have expertise in A, I have expertise in B, and we both need C.”

This feels weird at first. We’re taught that explicit exchange is somehow crude or calculating. But it’s actually respectful—it acknowledges that everyone’s time is valuable and clarifies expectations.

If you can’t articulate what value you’re offering or seeking, that’s a signal. Maybe this networking opportunity isn’t actually valuable. Maybe you need to think harder about what you want.

Building your value

Of course, explicit exchange only works if you have value to offer. And in research careers, your value compounds over time across several dimensions:

Information value: Who you know. What you know. What opportunities you’re aware of. This grows with every conference, collaboration, and conversation.

Capability value: What you can actually do. Your research skills, technical abilities, domain expertise. This is your core offering—and why PhD training matters.

Resource value: What you have access to. Data, funding, equipment, institutional support, time. Early career, you have very little of this. Senior career, you have more.

Reputation value: What others think you can deliver. Built slowly through consistent work, but it multiplies the impact of your other value.

The key isn’t to max out all dimensions—that’s impossible. It’s to develop strong capabilities (your “long board”) while maintaining reasonable breadth. Someone with deep expertise in computational urban modelling plus basic understanding of urban planning, policy, and data science is more valuable in networks than someone who’s mediocre at everything.

Practical strategies

Some things that actually work:

Be clear about what you want. Not just “career advancement” but specific things. Access to certain data? Feedback on a specific methodological problem? Introduction to someone working on X? Collaboration opportunity on Y?

Be clear about what you offer. And be realistic. Early career, you probably offer labour, fresh perspectives, and specific technical skills more than connections or resources. That’s fine—those are valuable.

Choose your networking intentionally. Not every conference reception is worth attending. Not every coffee chat is useful. If you can’t see potential value exchange, it’s okay to skip it. Your time is limited.

Build friendships separately. Some relationships are genuinely about emotional value—you enjoy each other’s company. Don’t pollute those with professional calculations. Keep them pure.

Follow through on value exchange. If you said you’d share that dataset, share it. If you promised to introduce someone, do it. Reputation is built on actually delivering value, not just promising it.

Be okay with imbalance—in both directions. Sometimes you help someone knowing they can’t reciprocate now. Sometimes someone helps you more than you can repay. Over a career, it balances out. But don’t let any single relationship stay badly imbalanced for too long.

The senior researcher problem

Here’s an uncomfortable truth: as you become more senior, your value exchange calculus changes. You have more to offer (resources, connections, reputation) but less time. This means you have to be more selective about networking.

I watch senior researchers struggle with this. They want to help everyone, but they can’t. So they end up either:

Spreading themselves too thin and burning out
Helping randomly based on who asks most persistently
Defaulting to helping people most similar to them (which perpetuates inequality)
Becoming jaded and helping no one

The better approach: be explicit about what you’re looking for when you network “downward.” Are you looking for capable people to collaborate with? Be clear about what capability you need. Looking to support underrepresented groups? Say so. Looking for people working on specific problems? Say that.

This clarity helps everyone. Junior people know whether they’re a good fit. You don’t waste anyone’s time.

What this means for academia

Academic culture makes networking harder than it needs to be. We pretend it’s all about “intellectual exchange” and “community building” while secretly everyone is calculating career advantage. This mismatch between stated and actual motives creates the discomfort.

What if we were just honest? “I’m here to meet potential collaborators, learn about new methods, and raise my research profile.” That’s not cynical—that’s why conferences exist.

What if we normalised explicit value exchange? “I’m looking for someone with expertise in X to help with Y problem. In exchange, I can offer Z.” That’s not transactional—that’s efficient.

What if we acknowledged that not all networking is worth it? Some people have nothing you need, and you have nothing they need. That’s fine. You don’t have to network with everyone.

The trickiest case: small talk and broad networking

Here’s the most uncomfortable networking situation: when there’s no clear value exchange at all. Conference receptions. Department socials. Industry mixers. The goal isn’t specific exchange—it’s just to meet people, be seen, and plant seeds for potential future value.

This is what most people actually hate about networking. And it’s tricky because the advice above doesn’t help. You can’t “be explicit about value exchange” when the point is vague relationship-building.

My solution: template your behaviour.

When value exchange is clear, you can be authentic and spontaneous—the structure is provided by the exchange itself. But when it’s pure small talk and broad networking, authenticity is exhausting. You need a script.

Here’s what works for me:

Have a standard self-introduction. 30 seconds, memorised, natural-sounding. Who you are, what you work on, one interesting hook. Practice it until it doesn’t sound practiced. Mine is something like: “I’m Sijie, PhD researcher at NUS. I work on using AI and street-view imagery to understand urban comfort—basically teaching computers to see cities the way people experience them. Currently obsessed with thermal comfort in tropical cities.”

Have 3-5 go-to questions. Questions that work for most people in your field and actually generate interesting answers:

“What brought you to this conference/event?”
“What are you working on that you’re excited about right now?”
“What’s the most surprising thing you’ve learned recently in your work?”
“Are you dealing with [common challenge in your field]? How are you approaching it?”

Have exit lines ready. You don’t need to talk to everyone for 20 minutes. After 5-7 minutes, it’s perfectly fine to say: “It was great chatting with you. I should circulate a bit more, but let’s stay in touch” or “I want to catch X before they leave, but I’d love to continue this conversation—can I get your contact?”

Set a quota and then leave. “I’ll have meaningful conversations with 5 new people, then I’m done.” Meeting the quota gives you permission to leave without guilt. Not meeting it gives you a clear goal.

Follow up systematically, not emotionally. After the event, you’ll have a bunch of cards or LinkedIn connections. Don’t rely on “feeling like it” to follow up. Have a system: within 48 hours, send a brief message to anyone you want to stay connected with. Template: “Great talking with you about X at Y. I’d be interested in learning more about Z you mentioned. Let me know if you’d ever like to chat about [specific topic].”

The key insight: when there’s no clear value exchange driving the interaction, you need structure to replace it. Templates, quotas, and systems reduce anxiety because they give you a script to follow. You’re not constantly figuring out what to say or do—you’re executing a process.

This feels mechanical. That’s the point. Broad networking doesn’t need authenticity—it needs efficiency and consistency. Save your authentic, spontaneous self for interactions where there’s actual substance to discuss.

When to do which type

Not all networking situations are the same. Here’s how I think about it:

Specific value exchange (be explicit and authentic):

Reaching out to someone whose work you want to learn from
Looking for collaboration on a specific project
Seeking advice on a particular problem
Offering to share resources or data
Following up on an introduction with clear purpose

Broad networking (use templates):

Conference receptions and socials
Department welcome events
Industry mixers
Large group dinners
Any event where the goal is “meet new people”

Friendship (ignore all this advice):

When you genuinely enjoy someone’s company
When conversation flows naturally without agenda
When you’d hang out even if there were zero career benefit

The anxiety comes from using the wrong approach for the situation. Trying to be authentic at a massive conference reception is exhausting. Trying to template a one-on-one coffee chat about collaboration is weird.

Match your strategy to the context.

The bottom line

Networking anxiety is often just unclear value exchange. The solution isn’t to become a shameless networker or to give up on networking entirely. It’s to:

For specific networking: Get clear about what value you offer, what you’re seeking, and be explicit about the exchange
For broad networking: Use templates, set quotas, and don’t expect deep connection
For friendship: Ignore all career calculations and just enjoy people

Choose networking opportunities where good exchange is possible—or where templated small talk serves a purpose. Don’t feel guilty about skipping the rest.

This won’t make networking fun (for most of us, it never will be). But it will make it less anxiety-inducing and more productive.

And honestly, if we all did this, academic networking would be a lot less painful for everyone.

How do you think about networking? Do you find explicit value exchange helpful or off-putting? Share your thoughts below.