Even when it is an important part of our jobs, many of us dislike networking. And doing it well is a skill. Not all networking creates the same kind of value, especially in global situations where success depends on understanding cultural differences. Sven Horak explains what the best networkers do, and how to learn it.
Good networking is difficult. Many leaders find networking uncomfortable, or even dislike it, because it can feel artificial, self-serving, or overly transactional. Yet without strong networks, leaders often struggle to gain the information, support or resources needed to turn ideas into action.
Networking, understood as behaviours aimed at building, maintaining and using informal relationships, therefore concerns not only whether leaders connect with others, but also how they do so and whether those relationships build or undermine trust. This challenge becomes more complex in global settings because networking differs across cultures, as values, social norms and behavioural ethics shape how relationships are initiated, maintained and used.
Practices viewed as normal and effective in one context may appear distant, opportunistic or exclusionary in another. A leader who contacts a stakeholder only when needing access or support may be seen as efficient in a more transactional environment, but as untrustworthy in a more relational culture where credibility is expected to develop before business needs arise. Effective global networking therefore requires both relational skill and ethical sensitivity to the cultural context.
The two dimensions of ethical networking
Two dimensions are especially important: relational depth and ethical commitment. Relational depth refers to how far a leader moves beyond transactional contact to build genuine human connection. Some leaders keep relationships functional and distant. Others invest in trust, mutual understanding and engagement that extends beyond immediate business needs. Ethical commitment means creating value for others and not exploiting relationships primarily for personal advantage. At one end are self-serving approaches that extract benefit without reciprocity. At the other are approaches grounded in fairness, mutual benefit and responsibility to the broader network. Together, these two dimensions shape the kind of influence leaders create and whether that influence is durable, trusted, and ethically sustainable.
Ethical networking in a global context
Networking in global leadership is often treated as a matter of skill: the ability to connect, persuade and build rapport across cultures. Yet skill alone is not enough. Leaders also differ in their intent – the relational depth they seek and in the ethical commitment that guides how they use relationships.
Relational depth ranges from functional, goal-oriented interaction to deeper relationships built on trust, personal interest and mutual understanding. Instrumental networking, common in many Western contexts, tends toward the former and helps explain why networking is sometimes perceived as artificial or self-serving. In more relational cultures, such as those in East Asia, Latin America or the Middle East, trust often develops through stronger personal ties. Relationships may need to mature before they become effective professionally.
Ethical commitment concerns the purpose behind networking. Some leaders use relationships primarily for personal advantage, even when this disadvantages or excludes others. Cultural norms influence how such behaviour is judged. Individualistic contexts may be more accepting of self-interested networking, whereas relational and collectivist environments may impose stronger social sanctions on behaviour perceived as opportunistic. A self-serving networker may lose reputation and face social isolation abroad, with serious consequences for business effectiveness and influence with stakeholders.
At the other end of the spectrum, leaders use networks to create mutual benefit, widen opportunity and strengthen trust. By supporting others, encouraging co-operation and creating value beyond immediate exchange, they build credibility and goodwill. Over time, trust-based relationships provide a stronger foundation for collaboration, influence and opportunity across cultural boundaries.
These dimensions produce four distinct orientations in global network leadership, illustrated in Figure 1.
Figure 1. Ethical Orientations in Global Network Leadership
The most effective networkers are Ethical Bridge Builders. They build authentic, trust-based relationships and use those connections to create mutual value, widen access and connect people across boundaries. They combine strong relationship-building with a genuine commitment to mutual benefit, invest in trust, show cultural sensitivity and use influence in ways that broaden rather than narrow the network around them. Their relationships are credible, reciprocal and resilient.
By contrast, Instrumental Opportunists approach networking in a minimal and calculated way. At the extreme, they show little real interest in the people they engage, their well-being or the wider community. They build only as much connection as necessary, contribute little beyond their own goals and often leave resentment behind. Although they may achieve short-term gains they rarely build the durable trust and dependable ties that leaders can draw on when they matter most.
Relational Opportunists are more complex. They are often socially skilled, warm and highly effective at gaining access. Yet their underlying intent remains self-serving. Their generosity is selective, their alliances are strategic and their networking can become exclusionary. Because they are personally engaging, others may not immediately see the imbalance in the relationship. But once that self-interest becomes visible, trust can erode quickly.
Finally, the Principled Isolate leads with integrity but struggles to engage relationally. On the positive side, such leaders avoid favouritism and nepotism, follow formal procedures and maintain clear ethical boundaries. Yet their interpersonal distance limits their ability to build the informal ties through which collaboration, sponsorship and co-ordination often happen, especially in global settings. They preserve fairness but often sacrifice influence and access.
Why this matters in practice
The practical lesson is straightforward – not all networking creates the same kind of value. Some leaders build networks that are broad but brittle. They are well connected but not deeply trusted. Others maintain ethical consistency yet fail to generate the relational momentum needed to mobilise support when it matters most. The most effective leaders do both: they build strong relationships and use them responsibly.
A familiar example illustrates the difference. A senior leader in a regional role is known for being exceptionally well connected. She invites stakeholders to dinners, remembers personal details and creates a strong impression of warmth and accessibility. On the surface, her network appears impressive. Over time, however, colleagues notice that her attention and generosity are directed mainly toward people who can advance her own agenda. Access is distributed unevenly. Opportunities flow selectively. The relationships may be strong, but their ethical foundation is weak. What appears to be influence is, in fact, a form of fragile dependence.
Now compare this with a leader who is equally relational but different in orientation. She also invests in trust, but uses her influence to connect people, broaden collaboration and create mutual value. She does not hoard access or cultivate loyalty through selective favours. She strengthens the wider network by making relationships more open, reciprocal and productive. That is the difference between networking that merely accumulates advantage and networking that builds lasting trust.
What Ethical Bridge Builders do differently
What distinguishes Ethical Bridge Builders, who build authentic, trust-based relationships and use those connections to create mutual value, in their day-to-day behaviour? First and foremost they invest in relationships before they need them. They build trust over time and treat relationships as long-term commitments rather than short-term opportunities. They do not approach people only when they want something. Instead they maintain connections with consistency, credibility and genuine interest. At the same time, they create mutual value by looking for ways to support others, share useful information and connect people across organisational, functional or cultural boundaries.
Their networking generates reciprocity and goodwill rather than silent obligation or dependence. They also understand informal power and use it responsibly. Rather than relying on charm, privileged access or selective generosity to manipulate outcomes behind the scenes, they use influence in ways that strengthen trust and make co-operation easier. They widen opportunity rather than restrict it, using their position in the network to bridge disconnected groups, include overlooked actors and foster collaboration across differences. Most importantly they align effectiveness with integrity. They do not see ethics and influence as competing goals, but recognise that in global settings especially, durable influence depends on the trust, credibility and relational legitimacy that ethical consistency makes possible.
Strategic implications for leaders and organisations
Organisations often reward visible networking success without examining the orientation behind it. Highly connected leaders may appear influential even when their networks depend on exclusion, selective reciprocity or personal advantage, creating risks such as resentment, fragile alliances, and reputational damage. At the same time, principled leaders may be undervalued if they lack the relational skills needed to mobilise informal networks.
The challenge is therefore to develop leaders who combine relational effectiveness with ethical discipline. Organisations should look beyond how well leaders are connected and ask how they use those connections. Do they build reciprocal trust or personal leverage? Do they widen access or concentrate it? Do their relationships create mutual value? These questions are especially important in global roles, where informal ties often shape trust, access, and collaboration across cultural and organisational boundaries.
Ethical network leadership can be developed. Leaders can reflect on why they network, how their behaviour is experienced by others, and whether their relationships create wider value. Organisations can support this through 360-degree feedback, leadership assessments, mentoring, reflective coaching, or discussions of networking-related ethical dilemmas.
The strategic objective is not less networking, but better networking. Leaders who combine authentic relationships with responsible influence become Ethical Bridge Builders. By creating trust, widening opportunity and connecting people across boundaries, they strengthen both their own effectiveness and the wider network. In global organisations, where informal relationships frequently shape formal outcomes, developing such leaders is a strategic advantage.
This article gives the views of the author, not the position of LSE Business Review or the London School of Economics. You are agreeing with our comment policy when you leave a comment.
Image credit: Rawpixel.com provided by Shutterstock.