Everyone gets anxiety about networking

来谈一件很少有人愿意承认的事：社交让大多数人焦虑。我讨厌它，你可能也讨厌。然而我们 constantly 被告知它对职业成功 essential，尤其在 academia 与 research。

我一直在想为何 networking 如此 uncomfortable，我认为我 figured it out：问题不在 networking 本身——在于 unclear value exchange。

社交究竟是什么

剥去 LinkedIn 建议与 career coaching 的 nonsense，networking fundamentally 关于 value exchange。仅此而已。你有 value，对方有 value，你们交换。

Value 可有不同形式：

情感价值：即我们所说的友谊。一起 hang out、have fun、relax。双方从互动中获得 enjoyment。Simple。

信息价值：Someone knows people you don’t know。Know things you don’t know。Have access to opportunities you don’t have。Research 与 professional contexts 中，这 often 是我们 actually trading 的。

资源价值：Time、money、connections、equipment、data access、computational resources。Tangible things advance your work。

能力价值：Skills、expertise、labour。你能 actually do 的对他人 useful 的事。

更高 position 的人也 network “downward”——not out of charity，而是 investment。Identifying capable people worth backing，因为 those people might provide value later，或 supporting them reflects well，或 strengthens their network。

为何社交令人难受

我的 theory：networking anxiety 来自 mismatched 或 unclear value exchange。

你 feel uncomfortable when：

无法 identify 对方 offering 什么 value
不确定你能 offer 什么 value
Value exchange feels unbalanced
想要 something from them 但不知道能 give 什么 in return
交换的 value 并非 actually 你想要的

那让你想 hide in bathroom 的 conference small talk？Probably 因为 neither person figured out 是否有 real value to exchange，但 both going through motions anyway。

你一直 put off 的 coffee chat？Probably 因为 not clear what you’re asking for or offering。

帮助某人后 feel “被利用”？That’s unreciprocated value exchange。

把它说 explicit

我 learnt 的（mostly from making it awkward）：be comfortable with networking 最快的方式是 make value exchange explicit。

Not transactional、cold way。But 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.”

起初 feels weird。We’re taught explicit exchange somehow crude or calculating。But actually respectful——acknowledges everyone’s time is valuable 并 clarifies expectations。

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

构建你的 value

当然，explicit exchange only works if have value to offer。Research careers 中，value compounds over time across several dimensions：

信息价值：Who you know。What you know。What opportunities aware of。Grows with every conference、collaboration、conversation。

能力价值：What you can actually do。Research skills、technical abilities、domain expertise。Core offering——why PhD training matters。

资源价值：What you have access to。Data、funding、equipment、institutional support、time。Early career very little。Senior career more。

声誉价值：What others think you can deliver。Built slowly through consistent work，multiplies impact of other value。

Key 不是 max out all dimensions——impossible。Develop strong capabilities（”long board”）while maintaining reasonable breadth。Deep expertise in computational urban modelling plus basic understanding of urban planning、policy、data science 在 networks 中 more valuable than mediocre at everything。

实用策略

Some things actually work：

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

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

Choose networking intentionally。 Not every conference reception worth attending。Not every coffee chat useful。Can’t see potential value exchange，okay to skip。Time is limited。

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

Follow through on value exchange。 Said you’d share dataset，share it。Promised introduce someone，do it。Reputation built on actually delivering value，not just promising。

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

资深研究者的问题

Uncomfortable truth：as become more senior，value exchange calculus changes。More to offer（resources、connections、reputation）but less time。Must be more selective about networking。

我见 senior researchers struggle。Want help everyone，can’t。End up either：

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

Better approach：be explicit about looking for when network “downward”。Looking for capable people collaborate with？Clear about capability need。Looking support underrepresented groups？Say so。Looking people working on specific problems？Say that。

Clarity helps everyone。Junior people know whether good fit。Don’t waste anyone’s time。

对 academia 意味着什么

Academic culture makes networking harder than needs to be。Pretend all about “intellectual exchange” and “community building” while secretly everyone calculating career advantage。Mismatch between stated and actual motives creates discomfort。

What if just honest？”I’m here meet potential collaborators、learn new methods、raise research profile。”Not cynical——that’s why conferences exist。

What if normalised explicit value exchange？”Looking for someone expertise in X help with Y problem. In exchange offer Z。”Not transactional——that’s efficient。

What if acknowledged not all networking worth it？Some people have nothing you need，you have nothing they need。That’s fine。Don’t have network with everyone。

最棘手的情况：寒暄与 broad networking

Most uncomfortable networking situation：when no clear value exchange at all。Conference receptions。Department socials。Industry mixers。Goal not specific exchange——just meet people、be seen、plant seeds for potential future value。

这 what most people actually hate about networking。Tricky because advice above doesn’t help。Can’t “be explicit about value exchange” when point is vague relationship-building。

我的 solution：template your behaviour。

When value exchange clear，can be authentic and spontaneous——structure provided by exchange itself。But pure small talk and broad networking，authenticity exhausting。Need script。

对我 works 的：

Have standard self-introduction。 30 seconds，memorised，natural-sounding。Who you are、what work on、one interesting hook。Practice until doesn’t sound practiced。Mine 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。 Work for most people in 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。 Don’t need talk to everyone 20 minutes。After 5-7 minutes perfectly fine 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 quota and then leave。 “I’ll have meaningful conversations with 5 new people, then I’m done.” Meeting quota gives permission leave without guilt。Not meeting gives clear goal。

Follow up systematically, not emotionally。 After event bunch of cards or LinkedIn connections。Don’t rely “feeling like it” follow up。Have system：within 48 hours send brief message anyone want 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].”

Key insight：when no clear value exchange driving interaction，need structure to replace it。Templates、quotas、systems reduce anxiety because give script to follow。Not constantly figuring out what to say or do——executing process。

Feels mechanical。That’s the point。Broad networking doesn’t need authenticity——needs efficiency and consistency。Save authentic、spontaneous self for interactions where actual substance to discuss。

何时用哪种类型

Not all networking situations same。How I think about it：

Specific value exchange（be explicit and authentic）：

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

Broad networking（use templates）：

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

Friendship（ignore all this advice）：

When genuinely enjoy someone’s company
When conversation flows naturally without agenda
When would hang out even if zero career benefit

Anxiety comes from using wrong approach for situation。Trying be authentic at massive conference reception exhausting。Trying template one-on-one coffee chat about collaboration weird。

Match strategy to context。

结语

Networking anxiety often just unclear value exchange。Solution not become shameless networker or give up entirely。而是：

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

Choose opportunities where good exchange possible——or where templated small talk serves purpose。Don’t feel guilty skipping rest。

Won’t make networking fun（for most never will）。But less anxiety-inducing and more productive。

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

你如何看待 networking？Explicit value exchange helpful or off-putting？欢迎分享。

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.