Weak Ties

Someone in my extended family is planning a wedding, which is a good opportunity to notice interesting things about human behavior.

My wife is in the wedding party and recently had a conversation about the bridal shower. After a long phone call about who should be invited ("This cousin, that cousin...this cousin we haven't seen in over a decade...the girlfriend of this other cousin, who doesn't know anyone, but..."), she wondered aloud:

"Why do we even bother? Why invite these people we barely know?"

It's an interesting question: why do we? It seems ridiculous - why go to significant expense (financially on the bride's side, time-wise on the shower-goers side), just to attend a relatively boring party with people you barely know? Sure, there's a gift-giving aspect, but the bride is in mid-life and she doesn't need spatulas or a mixer; she has those things. What are we doing?

Encoded in this seemingly-purposeless cultural tradition is an acknowledgment of a deep source of power: our weak ties. Knowing this source of power can allow you to find ways to bring it into your own life (without having to throw a bridal shower).

In 1973, Mark Granovetter wrote a sociology paper called "The Strength of Weak Ties." In it, he makes the case that weak ties - your acquaintances and loose affiliations - bring about upward mobility, not those you are closest to.

To understand this idea, let's first define weak and strong ties.

Imagine your relationships as a network. You are a node on that network; your friend Dan is also a node. Your relationship can be represented by a line, connecting you to Dan. If there is a third person that knows both of you, there will be lines from your node to theirs, and from their node to Dan's.

What would your close friend group look like in such a diagram? There would be a fair number of nodes; there would be connections between you and all your friends' nodes, since you know all of them. There would also be a fair number of connections between your friends, as many of your friends know one another. Thus, in Granovetter's words, your close-relationship network is densely-knit, showing lots of interconnections between nodes.

If we diagram out your acquaintances - people you know from work, people you've met while traveling, your third cousin you only see at family reunions, etc - the network is a loosely-knit one, showing only a few interconnections between the nodes. That's because your acquaintances are unlikely to know each other, since they share few contexts (don't work at the same job, don't live in the same area, didn't attend the same school, etc).

These loosely-knit networks of people unlikely to know one another are what Granovetter refers to as weak ties. Culturally, we tend to lionize our close relationships - our romantic partners, our "best friends," etc. - but lives rich in weak ties bring several powerful advantages that aren't immediately apparent.

For one, having a large number of weak ties improves your access to information. People who are closely connected tend to have redundant information. They know the same things, know the same people, have the same perspectives. But "weak ties" tend to have new information. They know people you don't, have access to environments you don't, hold opinions and ideas you don't. As such, the information held by weak ties is highly novel and useful for getting a deeper picture of what the world is really like.

This is no small thing. To quote Granovetter:

"...Individuals with few weak ties will be deprived of information from distant parts of the social system and will be confined to the provincial news and views of their close friends. This deprivation will not only insulate them from the latest ideas and fashions but may put them in a disadvantaged position in the labor market. where advancement can depend...on knowing about appropriate job openings at just the right time. Furthermore, such individuals may be difficult to organize or integrate into political movements of any kind, since membership in movements or goal-oriented organizations typically results from being recruited by friends. While members of one or two cliques may be efficiently recruited, the problem is that, without weak ties, any momentum generated in this way does not spread beyond the clique. As a result, most of the population will be untouched."

Thus, Granovetter argues, insular social groups with low numbers of weak ties can be fragmented, incoherent, and tend towards fear of the other.

There's another, slightly deeper argument that Granovetter makes: namely that weak ties enable a deeper sense of personal autonomy by requiring new and more thoughtful modes of communication.

Among your closest friends, you have a "tribal language" - whatever combination of inside jokes, slang, regionalisms, etc., you have come to be comfortable with amongst one another. These bits of language function as an indicator of in-group/out-group status: the meaning of each is clear to the members of the group, while meaning may be opaque or unclear to those outside of the group.

This means that in-group communication can often be largely unconscious; indeed, the ease of relation makes our close relationships so comfortable and rewarding.

Communicating with weak ties often requires a very different type of language and thought. Weak ties don't share your linguistic idiosyncrasies or necessarily share your worldview, which requires you to navigate those differences in your communication. What do you need to explain? What do you need to couch in more careful or nuanced language? In the process of analyzing and choosing your words, you explore both your own inner world and that of your weak tie, as you must discern what they know and feel.

Granovetter quotes Rose Coser here:

"In 'elaborated speech there is a relatively high level of individualism, for it results from the ability to put oneself in imagination in the position of each role partner in relation to all others, including oneself' (p. 257). She goes on to argue that the social structure faced by children of lower socio-economic backgrounds does not encourage the complex role set that would, in turn, facilitate the development of 'intellectual flexibility and self-direction' (p. 258)."

Is there evidence for the idea that weak ties are more valuable than we assume? Yes. Research on remote work during the pandemic by Ben Waber and Zanele Munyikwa found that while individual productivity increased, communication with weak ties declined by 21 percent, which contributed to delays in product development.

Similarly, Kristie McAlpine’s study of tech teams found that when employees were in the office together less often, spontaneous interactions—and thus idea generation—diminished. Once projects moved to execution, however, the location of workers mattered less, underscoring the role of weak ties in early-stage creativity.

Beyond the workplace, Ericksen and Yancey’s study of job-seeking patterns in Philadelphia found that weak ties played a crucial role in helping more educated individuals secure jobs, particularly in managerial roles. Their findings suggest that while strong ties provide support, weak ties expand access to new opportunities and information.

Langlois reinforced this idea in a study of government workers in Quebec, where even in a highly formalized hiring environment, 42.7 percent of employees still found their jobs through personal connections, demonstrating the persistent and significant role of social networks in career advancement.

And that’s just what I found on the internet.

The takeaway:

Weak ties are a source of power. They assist in upwards social mobility and expose us to new ideas that foster innovation, creativity, and help us better understand the world.

So what do you do about it?

I am reminded of my very first business mentor, Michael Port, author of the book Book Yourself Solid (which holds up well). He had a saying: "Always have something to invite people to."

Once you understand the value of weak ties, you can go about deliberately cultivating and maintaining them. Our social landscape is increasingly fragmented, and people are increasingly insular. It's hard to find an equivalent to the social venues of the past (as detailed in books like Bowling Alone). One way to get around this is to "always have something to invite people to" - to have a go-to, low-stakes way of forging a relationship with someone new.

For me, that's my podcast, The Dan Barrett Show. Everyone likes being interviewed on a podcast, and I can share people's work and interests with my audience. That means that coming on the show is both low-risk and valuable for whomever I ask.

What's more, the podcast format plays to my strengths. I'm personable and curious - I want to know more about the people I talk to. As a result, people enjoy our conversations, and I get frequent comments about how great my questions were, how it was the best interview they've done, etc.

Just walking up to new people and asking them to spend an hour of their time "getting to know me" seems weird. That's my own limiting belief. But saying to someone I just met, "Hey, you seem really fascinating - would you like to be a guest on my podcast?" seems easy, and it results in the exact same thing (better, actually, since people have some idea of what to expect on a podcast, and are thus slightly more at ease than if they were walking into a vaguely-defined "get to know Dan" session).

Your "thing" does not have to be a podcast. It could be a monthly dinner where you invite a mix of old friends and new acquaintances to share a meal and good conversation. It could be a casual book club that meets over coffee, creating a space for interesting discussions while naturally expanding your network. If you're into fitness, it might be a regular workout group, a way to bond with people while doing something active together. For business-oriented connections, hosting a small mastermind or discussion group—whether online or in person—can be a great way to exchange ideas and stay in touch with a diverse set of people. Even something as simple as a standing invitation to a local happy hour or a trivia night can serve the same purpose: a consistent, low-stakes opportunity to maintain and grow your weak ties, keeping your network alive and dynamic.

The exact format doesn't matter. What matters is deliberately seeking out and maintaining your weak ties. You'll meet all kinds of fascinating people, extend your network for when you need it, and gain a deeper and more nuanced sense of the world.

And that's worth the investment.

Yours,

Dan

SOMETHING I'M READING:

Truly disturbing, yet fascinating, which has kind of been my reading vibe lately.

The Delirious, Violent, Impossible True Story of the Zizians

A handful of gifted young tech people set out to save the world. For years, WIRED has been tracking each twist and turn of their alleged descent into mayhem and death.

WIREDEvan Ratliff