Consequential strangers are the people with whom we enjoy casual relationships in our neighborhoods, workplaces and third places that can be as vital to our health, wealth, wisdom and well-being as our family and closest friends (or what I like to call speed dial friends). According to a new book by Melinda Blau and Karen Fingerman, Consequential Strangers: The Power of People Who Don’t Seem to Matter … But Really Do, these networks – or social convoys – of acquaintanceships include people who are often able to open us up to more opportunities than we may fully appreciate. Many of these people on the periphery, our weak ties, are ready, willing and able to connect us with information, jobs and other resources we need to realize our full potential.
The extensively researched and highly accessible book starts out by reviewing Mark Granovetter’s seminal study on The Strength of Weak Ties, first published in the 1973 (and revisited in 1983), which demonstrated that people outside our innermost social circles were the most likely to help us find jobs and mobilize our communities. They continue on with research published in 2003 by Keith Hampton and Barry Wellman on the strength of weak ties abetted by technology in connecting and mobilizing physical communities, Neighboring in Netville: How the Internet Supports Community and Social Capital in a Wired Suburb, as well as research by Robert Wuthnow (After the Baby Boomers) that explores the different kinds of groups outside of our neighborhoods – religious, self-help and activity-oriented – in which consequential strangers seek and provide assistance to each other.
In addition to the academic research reviewed in the book, the authors include a number of other stories highlighting the importance of consequential strangers. For example, Karla Lightfoot, an enthusiastic member of the Ladies Who Launch entrepreneur network, has achieved personal and professional success due, in part, to her delight in the interactions and connections with the people she encounters in a variety of contexts. Lightfoot, who the authors describe as an acquaintanceship artist, extols (and demonstrates) the benefits of being more open to serendipitous opportunities: “It’s about sharing whatever you have and people being able to ask for what they need”. Graham Spanier, president of Pennsylvania State University (with over 38,000 employees and 80,000 students spanning 24 campuses), spends the first week of the school year living in a freshman dorm in order to expand his network of consequential strangers, noting that breaking down barriers can help leaders become more effective. Sue Ellen Cooper, founder of the Red Hat Society, discovered that assembling a group of consequential strangers to engage in a “small act of rebellion” – wearing purple outfits and red hats to lunch (as shown in photo to the left) – helped unleash “their most carefree, playful selves”. This group of women over fifty who gather for “fun, friendship, freedom and fulfillment” has become the world’s largest social networking community for women, having grown to 40,000 members in a little over ten years.
The authors cite psychological studies by Marilyn Brewer (who pioneered optimal distinctiveness theory) that differentiate between a personal self that seeks distinction, and a social self that seeks connection and belonging. They note other studies that demonstrate the power and prevalence of social mirrors, and the role of audiences and witnesses in the perception and construction of our complex selves: “We see ourselves in others’ eyes”. [The image to the right is a depiction of one of the earliest articulations of this concept, the “looking glass self“, by Charles Cooley in 1902.] Consequential strangers help us stretch beyond the relatively rigid boxes that the people who have known us the longest – our family and close friends – often put us into. Through interacting with people who do not know us as well, we are more free to experiment with ourselves, and less likely to have our new behaviors and roles reflected back to us by people who object, “But that’s not like you!”.
Places and groups that offer support for redefining or extending ourselves might be thought of as self-construction zones. This support is, I suspect, a large part of the power of entrepreneur networks – where people are experimenting with new businesses – colleges and universities – where people are experimenting with new fields of learning – and social networking groups – where people are experimenting with new ways of having fun (not that I mean to imply that business, learning and fun are mutually exclusive).
Ralph Waldo Emerson observed that
All life is an experiment. The more experiments you make the better.
One corollary may be that every consequential stranger represents a lab partner, and the places we interact with consequential strangers represent living laboratories.
Some of the most productive living laboratories are coffeehouses, prototypical third places where people may be especially receptive to serendipitous encounters with consequential strangers. I first encountered Blau and Fingerman’s book in my research into the social aspects of coffeehouses, much of which is summarized in my earlier post on conversation, community and culture at Starbucks. The book includes an entire chapter on Being Spaces: places “where a stranger can become a consequential stranger” that feature “an atmosphere and activities that inspire us to connect”. The authors do talk about coffeehouses, of course, but extend the discussion of sociable spaces to include diners, banks, supermarkets, gyms and other physical environments that are seeking to integrate communal and commercial benefits by creating “human watering holes” that promote the “linger longer effect”.
Toward the end of the chapter, the authors extend the notion of being spaces from the physical world to the online world. They profile Meetup.com, a web site where people can make plans online to connect offline with others based on shared interests and activities. Throughout the book, they make references to online communities and social networking sites. Interestingly, while they make numerous references to Facebook, it seems to me that Twitter is the online platform most conducive to the transformation of strangers into consequential strangers and acquaintances.
Others have suggested that Twitter is the virtual coffeeshop … or that Twitter is more than just an offline coffeeshop. The opportunity to “follow” people on Twitter without requiring that they reciprocate, as is the case in most other social networking platforms (e.g., the bidirectional “friends” links in Facebook and “contacts” links in LinkedIn), makes it easier for people to progress through the “initiating” and “experimenting” stages of self-disclosure. For me, at least, Facebook is a place for friends, while Twitter is a place for cultivating connections to consequential strangers.
Jason Simon (@CoffeeShopChat), a friend with whom I first established a consequential acquaintanceship via Twitter, recently sent me a link to an eBook, Twittertales, a collection of short stories by “Conversation Agent” Valeria Maltoni. Each story – which are all longer than 140 characters, but less than two pages – represents a consequential acquaintanceship established via Twitter that led to “a friendship, project, career opportunity, [or] meaningful and purposeful new something”. Although Maltoni doesn’t use the term, I believe these are all compelling examples of what Blau and Fingerman call consequential strangers.
I will finish off with a relevant excerpt from of one of the stories. In “Mint, the Derby and a New Friend”, Michael Winn shares an exchange on Twitter which leads to the realization that a person he had thought of as a “complete stranger” was really a consequential stranger who was transformed from an online “follower” (or, more precisely, “followee”) into a real world friend through a simple act of kindness:
Here is [a] series of Twitter status updates from Friday between myself (TallyDigitalBiz) and RickOpp whom I have never met in real life, but follow on Twitter:
@RickOpp 2:33 PM May 1st from web: about to go on a mint run — essential for juleps for Derby Day and mojitos for post-golf @ poolside Sunday.
@TallyDigitalBiz (2:54 PM May 1st from web in reply to RickOpp):let me know where you find the mint “goods” i went to three stores and struck out, had to settle for just the mixer:
@RickOpp 3:33 PM May 1st (from TwitterBerry in reply to @TallyDigitalBiz): Tharpe Publix was out & produce guy said other Pubs may b out 2. Got last 2 pkgs @ Tharpe WinnDixie. Try calling others.
@TallyDigitalBiz (3:39 PM May 1st from TweetDeck): Enjoying free WiFi and a black and white at Starbucks on North Monroe
@RickOpp 3:46 PM MAY 1st via Direct Message Raise ur hand & wave right now.At 3:46 PM on Friday May 1st while sitting in Starbucks on North Monroe, I hear a friendly voice ask; Are you Michael Winn? I reply, yes. Reaching out to shake hands, I am handed a small package of fresh mint. Stunned, I have just experienced the incredible power of connection between Twitter and real world friendships. RickOpp, who I personally know now as Rick Oppenheim, have a Twitter story that will be told over and over.
In less than 73 minutes, two complete strangers found a common interest. By the simple spirit of generosity and hospitality, two people now have a keystone to building something beyond Twitter updates, mint, and a 50 to 1 shot winning the Derby.
Comments
8 responses to “Consequential Strangers and Acquaintanceships, Online and Offline”
At the end of the day, it’s conversation that makes strangers less strange, and it takes a willingness and/or desire to start one with someone unfamiliar (face to face or online) that makes some strangers consequential. Strangers become acquaintances and acquaintances become friends. And of course, coffeehouses are known to be conversation friendly.
Coffeeshopchat: thanks for adding to the conversation! Your point about familiarity – and unfamiliarity – is well taken. One of the key components of the implicit social contract between familiar strangers is to refrain from any conversation. We may maintain a nodding acquaintanecship with some of the people we regularly see in the places we regularly go – for example, commuter train or bus stops, workplace cafeterias, and I would include coffeehouses – but the sheer magnitude of people we encounter daily in densely populated urban areas often results in social overload.
Engaging in even a single meaningful conversation with any of these people may reveal personal information that one may feel obligated to remember and revisit upon subsequent encounters, e.g., “How is your [spouse|child|significant other] doing?” or “How is your [work|school|project] going?” Phatic conversations about topics like the weather are far less risky, but they are less risky precisely because they are less likely to lead to the formation of an acquaintanceship.
I agree that coffeehouses that include the appropriate conversation catalysts – such as engaging baristas, well designed spaces, communal tables, and various low-tech or high-tech “tickets to talk” – can promote the transformation of familiar strangers into consequential strangers (or acquaintances). And I hope, like I know you do (from earlier conversations), that tools such as Twitter may be helping to reduce the perceived risks of connecting with strangers, and paving the way for more conversations, online and offline.
Thanks for the review! I just started reading this book and am most interested in the effect on creativity regular contact with non-intimates have. One page mentioned how comfortable we get with our most intimate friends, and how some professor commented that he gets “fancy brain” when he talks or tries to solve problems with people who are experts in other disciplines. It’s an argument and experiment I’d like to bring to open source projects I work with. The reason why we need more diversity (economic, gender, academic disciplines) in our development groups isn’t just for diversity’s sake — having lots of different people involved makes organizations smarter and more creative.
Selena: thanks for highlighting the importance of diversity to promoting greater creativity. I’m reminded of several of Dee Hock’s Chaordic Leadership Principles, but particularly his view on hiring:
“Never hire or promote in your own image. It is foolish to replicate your strength. It is stupid to replicate your weakness. Employ, trust, and reward those whose perspective, ability and judgment are radically different from your own and recognize that it requires uncommon humility, tolerance, and wisdom.”
Joe, thank you so much for highlighting these concepts. They resonate in my working life as I try to explain why people gain so much value from sharing their health experiences online — best summarized in two reports I’ve written:
Social Life of Health Information (2009)
http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2009/8-The-Social-Life-of-Health-Information.aspx
Peer-to-peer Healthcare (2011)
http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2011/P2PHealthcare.aspx
The ideas also resonate personally since I’m incorrigibly social and treat any street corner, bus seat, or conference hallway as an opportunity to chat with people. I recognize, however, that this sets me apart from a lot of people who are shy or who just don’t gain energy from talking with other people.
Along these lines: I’m beginning to formulate a framework for what the internet can & can’t do — it can provide the opportunity for meeting consequential strangers (lead you to the coffeeshop) but it can’t change your personality (can’t make you do more than drink the coffee). Or can it? Is that covered in the books you cite above?
Susannah: I found this book enormously illuminating, and I’m glad that some of the excerpts I included are interesting and useful to you.
The reports you reference are also enormously illuminating, and I highly recommend them for anyone interested in the ways that people seek out health information – through pages and/or other people – online.
At the time I wrote this post, I was more focused on coffeeshop conversations than health care, so I’m grateful for the opportunity your comment presents to go back and revisit the book.
There is a whole chapter in Consequential Strangers on “Good for What Ails Us”, that focuses on the health benefits available through our weak ties. The authors cite studies by Sheldon Cohen and his colleagues, including one Social ties and susceptibility to the common cold [JAMA, 1997 Jun 25;277(24):1940-4], which showed that people with a more diverse web of relationships [spouse, parents, in-laws, children, other family, friends, coworkers, neighbors, schoolmates, fellow volunteers, members of religious groups, members of social, recreational or professional groups] were much less likely to come down with a cold than those with a narrower collection of associations.
The book also reports on a study by Lisa Berkman and Leonard Syme, Social networks, host resistance, and mortality: a nine-year follow-up study of Alameda County residents [Am J Epidemiol, 1979 Feb;109(2):186-204], which showed that “people who lacked close and community ties, including consequential strangers, were more likely to die nine years earlier than those with more extensive social connections”. This is the study in which the Berkman-Syme Social Network Index (SNI) is introduced.
BTW, in searching for more information about the Berkman-Syme SNI, I came across a table describing a health survey questionnaire – from a The North Staffordshire Osteoarthritis Project – NorStOP: Prospective, 3-year study of the epidemiology and management of clinical osteoarthritis in a general population of older adults [Elaine Thomas, Ross Wilkie, George Peat, Susan Hill, Krysia Dziedzic and Peter Croft, BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders 2004, 5:2, doi:10.1186/1471-2474-5-2] – which covers topics such as participation and social isolation (using the Berkman-Syme SNI) along with demographic, occupational, lifestyle and anthropometric characteristics.
There are numerous other studies – and interviews by Melinda Blau (@melindablau), one of the authors – in Consequential Strangers that relate to social networks (online and offline) and health issues. Like you, Melinda is also very sociable, and although she has moved on to focus on other topics since the book was published, she may be willing to share some of the other insights that she and her author uncovered in their work. Among their observations that speak to the framework you are formulating: “What we do know for sure is that nothing works for everyone” [p. 119].
As for your question about innate vs. learned (or adopted) behaviors, I just ordered another book, Mindset, by Carol Dweck, that another friend recommended yesterday – during a meeting in a coffeeshop – while discussing this very topic, so I hope to have more to report on that theme sometime in the near future.
Joe, Thanks for giving me a heads-up via Twitter to let me know that you’re still talking about Consequential Strangers–the concept and the book. Yes, I’ve “moved on” in a sense, because my work is as a journalist and I cover many subjects. (I don’t know if you ever saw this piece,”The Audacity of Hype,” but it’s a short, humorous–and true–account of my realization that I’m not a publicist; I’m a writer!
That said, in my everyday life, I live the concepts in the book. I always have, which is what drew me to the subject in the first place, but now I engage with strangers more than ever, because I understand the value of doing so.
For example, I’ve been spending a lot of time in Paris, and on my last trip I was determined to make the city my own (it has been a hard adjustment, among other reasons because I only speak a little French). So I set out to “make” CS — and did a great job, talking to others who walked their dogs, forging connections with people in pilates and yoga classes.
At the end of six weeks, I knew enough people to throw a party. Right before everyone came, though, I realized, “I hardly know these people!” But it was one of the best parties I’ve ever given, and many of my guests are now connected to one another…through me. When I return in May, I know I have my “peeps” there. In the book I wrote that a place doesn’t feel like “home” until you have a group of CS (number varies according to the person)– how true that is.
As for health issues, if Susanna would like to contact me, I have lots of thoughts and, as you pointed out, much data in the book. Indeed, the most robust body of research on CS (although they’re not called that) is in the health field.
So glad that you’re now one of my consequential strangers!
Melinda
Melinda: thanks for the updates, on all dimensions. I hadn’t read your Audacity of Hype article before, and so enjoyed reading about it now … and you seem to be living the concepts in that piece, too (“Authors need to publicize their books, but not forever”).
I hope you continue to enjoy meeting consequential strangers in Paris, and transforming some into consequential friends (or at least consequential acquaintances).
I’ll post a tweet to Susannah to let her know you’re open to a conversation – modulo timezone differences – about research on the correlations and connections between consequential strangers and health outcomes.