Granovetter argues that weak ties, also defined as acquaintances, are extremely fundamental in networking and in general in one’s professional/social life. In fact, knowing a lot of people not so well, rather than focusing on having a lot of very in depth relationships is more effective in integrating oneself in a community or getting a job. This makes sense if one approaches it with simple mathematics: if you know only individual A and B very well, they might lead you maybe a couple of connections. If you, instead know A very well, but know B, C, D and E as acquaintances, each of those people could lead you to way more connections and acquaintances than the first case.

Granovetter particularly argues that stronger ties lead to fragmentation in the long term, which makes sense because once someone gets really into someone else’s personal sphere, conflicts are very likely to arise leading to a break with the person; if someone instead focuses on having less deep relationships with more people, conflict is less likely to arise and the person benefits completely from the superficial relationship as it becomes purely functional (networking).

An interesting example that Granovetter gives is the one of a politician: the individual is more likely to be elected based on a popularity factor. Popularity and trust, of course, are determined by how many people know they future leader and that is determined by their acquaintances indeed, and thus the “weak ties”.

Questions: The philosophy of weak ties is extremely effective in terms of functionality for one’s networking, but is it in terms of one’s personal life happiness?

Most of the examples of effectiveness of weak ties is based on a factor of trust, which is developed after a certain point of development in these superficial relationships. But when does a weak tie become a strong tie? Could the achievement of trust blur the border between the two?

Sara Camnasio