Skip to main content

How to Network and Be a Good Colleague

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The Academic Medicine Handbook

Abstract

Learning the skills and habits to network well and be a good colleague holds immense potential to improve the quality of our lives as well as our connections to one another. Networks—whether defined as one’s network of friends, family, colleagues, or permutations and combinations of all three—can serve to support and promote our personal and professional needs, while fostering a greater sense of connectedness and responsibility within our community. Moreover, these networks are strongly associated with scientific creativity, job performance, findings new jobs, and promotion. In addition to driving individual development and success, social networks are also associated with departmental and even organizational success. Despite the large impact of social networks, many in academic medicine feel uncomfortable with “networking.” This is unfortunate, because those who are uncomfortable with networking and developing the power of their network may be missing out on important opportunities. Social network scholars view an individual as embedded in a larger web of relationships. Ideally, to expand one’s network, one should look for those who are “similar enough” to meet and talk to, but who are also “different enough” to develop new ideas and ways of working together that leverage these differences. To increase the diversity of one’s network, we offer single overarching piece of advice: Be authentically curious about others. Finally, in order to be a good colleague, the academic must know oneself, know one’s limits and traits, and develop techniques for working with these optimally, with appropriate boundaries, in one’s interactions with colleagues.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 79.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Beach MC, Inui T. Relationship-centered care. A constructive reframing. J Gen Intern Med. 2006;21 Suppl 1:S3–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Cuff PA, Vanselow, N (Eds). Committee on Behavioral and Social Sciences in Medical School Curricula. Improving Medical Education: Enhancing the Behavioral and Social Science Content of Medical School Curricula. Washington DC: The National Academies Press; 2004.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Pololi L, Conrad P, Knight S, et al. A study of the relational aspects of the culture of academic medicine. Acad Med. 2009;84:106–14.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Schindler BA, Novack DH, Cohen DG, et al. The impact of the changing health care environment on the health and well-being of faculty at four medical schools. Acad Med. 2006;81:27–34.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Borgatti SP, Mehra A, Brass DJ, et al. Network analysis in the social sciences. Science. 2009;323:892–5.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Granovetter M. The strength of weak ties. Am J Sociol. 1973;78:1360–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Granovetter M. The strength of weak ties: a network theory revisited. In: Marsden P, Lin N, editors. Social structure and network analysis. New York: John Wiley and Sons; 1982. p. 105–30.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Burt RS. Structural holes: the social structure of competition. Boston: Harvard University; 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Montoya RM, Horton RS, Kirchner J. Is actual similarity necessary for attraction? A meta-analysis of actual and perceived similarity. J Soc Pers Relat. 2008;25:889–922.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Byrne D. The attraction paradigm. London: Academic; 1971.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Deborah Rhodes: a tool that finds 3x more breast tumors, and why it’s not available to you. 2011. http://www.ted.com/talks/deborah_rhodes.html. Accessed Jan 6 2011.

  12. Reskin B. Sex differentiation and the social organization of science. In: Gaston J, editor. Sociology of science. San Francisco: Jossey Bass; 1978. p. 6–37.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Epstein C. Woman’s place: options and limits in ­professional careers. Berkeley: University of California; 1970.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Emmett A. A woman’s institute of technology. Technol Rev. 1992; April: 16–8.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Festinger L, Schachter S, Back K. Social pressures in informal groups: a study of human factors in housing. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University; 1950.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Lee K, Brownstein JS, Mills RG, et al. Does collocation inform the impact of collaboration? PLoS One. 2010;5:e14279.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Gouldner AW. The norm of reciprocity: a preliminary statement. Am Sociol Rev. 1960;25:161–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Ury W. The power of a positive no. New York: Bantam Books; 2007.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Edward Kass Ph.D. .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2013 Springer Science+Business Media New York

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Kass, E., Dunn, L.B. (2013). How to Network and Be a Good Colleague. In: Roberts, L. (eds) The Academic Medicine Handbook. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-5693-3_18

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-5693-3_18

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, New York, NY

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-4614-5692-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-4614-5693-3

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics