Alan Sugar and Networking: Why the 'Entrepreneurs' Champion' could lead them to disaster

A well thought out argument and strong case put forward. I question how many people do now take Lord Sugar seriously. Most SME's I know see him no longer as an entrepreneur but a personality, admiring what he has done not what he does. On that basis, I expect that most will value the experience of networking over the words of an enterprise czar.

Andy, you make some good points to counter what The Lord said. Much of the irritation against his article has been about his comments on networking. But he is right. He is not, as you say, insulting the organisers of networking organisations and events - indeed he is praising them for their entrepreneurial spirit. Rather he is potentially insulting the attendees. I am sure you know that most people who attend networking events fail to make any real use of them. Indeed, isn't that why you are able to make a living? Many people "do networking" without actually doing anything. They then feel they need advice on how to network effectively, where you come in. If they did the right things in the first place, they wouldn't need you...! What Lord Sugar is pointing out is that few business people do the right things in the first place. He is saying that too many people go to networking events and fail to grasp the opportunity. If, however, they did what he suggests - base their business on their own knowledge and desire they would, like him, succeed. Dozens of psychological studies confirm, time and time again, that "gut instinct" is right. In other words people really do know what to do to succeed with their business, but do not get on and do it. Instead, they go to networking events in the hope they'll find an easier or different solution - but don't. The reason? We're taught throughout our upbringing and education systems NOT to rely on gut instinct. Entrepreneurs have a common trait - they have rejected such advice in their youth. Lord Sugar is really pointing out that to succeed people should rely on their gut more than their head - and then they would go to fewer networking events. But perhaps you don't want people to know that....!

I agree, Andy, that networking is an activity that should be championed. Many people, however, seem to think the activity of attending networking events is all that is required

The people who make networking really work have people advocating them when they are not there. They get a constant flow of business, support and opportunities through these 'Advocates'. Like anything worthwhile, networking takes time and application. You need to be committed to investing the time to develop relationships and create a network of advocates.

That means more than just attending events.

Along with over 200 other entrepreneurs I lost all respect for 'Lord' Alan Sugar the night I saw him interviewed by RealBusiness editor Matthew Rock at the British Library a year or so ago.
'The only use for a business book is to prop up a short leg on your table' 'You can't learn how to negotiate' and 'No one can be taught enterprise' were just a few of the comments from the then 'Enterprise Tsar'.
Now we have these ridiculous comments that in business 'you're on your own'.
The problem is Alan Sugar is an old paradigm entrepreneur. He is symbolic of the capitalist smash and grab way of doing business.

But times have changed. In the new paradigm collaboration is far more powerful than competition and businesses understand that when they work together they are far stronger.

Unfortunately along with many old style entrepreneurs, Alan Sugar is now symbolic of a dinosaur within the business establishment - out of touch, arrogant and long past his sell by date.

It's just a shame that the BBC continues to give energy to this old style, unsustainable 'control & command' way of doing business. It sends such a negative message to the new wave of entrepreneurs coming onto the business scene.

Andy,

I can see why this got your back up. It is unequivocally insulting to people who organise networking events. Lord Sugar has let himself down by making these remarks. He's gone to the extreme to make a point. I'd imagine that he knows he's making a broad and therefore unfair generalisation but feels (wrongly) that he has to go to extremes to make the point.

That said, when I read the whole article it did come across as having a positive sentiment with two main messages. 1) Get the simple maths of business right. 2) Don't be reliant on others when it comes to making decisions. I agree with both of these, but on point 2 feel very strongly that good decision making is supported by a strong network.

There are a couple of ironic twists here, having read Lord Sugar's book.

Firstly, it's clear to me that he did build and use a network. Secondly, he has plainly got an excellent understanding of how to build an enormously successful business empire. Despite what some people say, most of what he did is very relevant in business today.

Such a shame for him to spoil it by not taking the time to think before he speaks.

Finally though, let's give ourselves a bit of credit here. I like Lord Sugar and am not afraid to say so. But really, would I stop getting involved in networking because of what he said in that article? Not a chance. We've all got minds of our own haven't we?

It's clear from the comments both here and elsewhere that many people view Lord Sugar as a dinosaur with an outdated approach to business. I would tend to agree that I find his public persona and approach to business antagonistic and competitive, rather than supportive and collaborative. And that is a shame.

With so many more people starting their own businesses, and indeed large organisations encouraging 'intrapreneurialism', business leaders in the public eye have a responsibility to lead by example. Teaching dog-eat-dog business ethics can't be in the general interest.

I have no doubt Adrian that he did build his business through a network, and other have pointed out that his comments were targeted at networking groups rather than networks per se. My point, however, is that few people reading that article will take the time to make that distinction.

This is tabloid journalism rather than considered advice. Perhaps the article was in the wrong newspaper.

This is a copy of the letter I sent to The Daily Telegraph after reading Lord Sugar's article:

As an owner of a small or medium sized business (SME), I returned to my office this morning from my regular visit to the BRX business development group in Barnet to read Lord Sugar’s article on how we SMEs can succeed in 2011.

Whilst I agree with much of what he advises, I have to take issue with him on his dismissive attitude towards ‘networking meetings’.

His mantra appears to be: don’t rely on anyone else – do it for yourself. But I would contend that customers generally don’t appear out of nowhere, and businesses are increasingly built on two fundamental elements: creating a positive reputation, and maintaining a level of visibility.

Like Lord Sugar, I’ve been in business long enough to remember when advertising was influential and cost-effective, but changes in social behaviour now mean that we are far more likely to ask for recommendations, referrals and introductions from those we most trust – friends, neighbours, relatives and business colleagues.

The introductions and support that I – and thousands like me - get from BRX has enabled us to build profitable businesses without wasting money on forms of marketing which will never give us a positive return on our investment.

And contrary to Lord Sugar’s assertion, I usually DO pick up a nugget of useful information at every meeting I go to. Listening is the key!

Naturally, there are good business groups and bad ones, but based on my experience, I would urge owners of SMEs to get out there and get their message heard if they are to maximise the opportunities 2011 will present.

Yours sincerely

Jeremy Silverstone
Owner
Purple Marketing
Potters Bar, Herts