Networking introverted via email (not LinkedIn)

I can help you with that. However, I don't see the Italian text provided. Please paste the Italian text, and I'll be happy to assist you in translating it into English while following the given rules.

Networking is one of those words that triggers an intense visceral reaction of annoyance in me. Not because professional relationships don't continue - they do, of course. But because the dominant version of "networking" in the tech world - crowded events, awkward cocktail parties with strangers, motivational LinkedIn posts, presentation slides for those who don't know anyone - is designed for people with a very specific psychological profile. People who enjoy meeting many new people quickly, who find energy in social situations, and are comfortable being visible in a new context. Not all developers are like that. I'm not like that either.

I have interpreted this incompatibility as a personal problem for years. As if my difficulty with traditional networking were a professional weakness to be compensated for. Over time I realized it was a false premise: traditional networking is not the only way to build professional relationships. It's just the most visible one, and therefore the default recommended method, without considering that it works well for a minority of people and poorly for the majority.

The alternative I found - the one this article is based on - is direct email networking. Not mass emails, not newsletters, not campaigns. Individual emails, handwritten for a specific person, on a specific topic, with a precise goal. This type of networking is silent, it doesn't require being in densely social environments, it doesn't require pretending to be enthusiastic about people you don't know. It requires only the ability to write well and think about what you want to communicate - two things that many people with non-CS backgrounds already have.

This article concludes the first narrator block in the series. The next articles will introduce real-life cases of people who have made a transition from different backgrounds - law, mathematics, economics, and philosophy. However, before entering the stories of others, I wanted to close with this theme: networking, because it's one of the topics on which I've received more questions and on which the prevailing narrative is further away from my experience.

Typical difficulties

The challenges of building a professional network for those coming from a non-CS background are specific and worth mentioning with precision.

The existing network does not transfer

Who has worked for years in another sector has a consolidated professional network in that sector. That network does not automatically transfer to the tech world. There are exceptions - an ex-colleague who is now working in legal tech, a contact from economics who is now working in fintech - but in most cases, transitioning to the tech world means rebuilding one's professional network almost from scratch. This is discouraging and is often underestimated.

The only good news in this difficult situation is that the tech world is relatively small compared to other sectors - especially in Italy - and that connections with open source project maintainers, active community contributors, and online developers are more accessible than they seem from the outside.

LinkedIn is not for everyone

LinkedIn is recommended as the primary channel for professional networking in tech, and it's actually where you'll find most of the job offers and recruiters. However, there's a difference between using LinkedIn to search for job offers (useful) and using LinkedIn as an active networking tool with developers you want to get to know (much less effective than you think).

The problem with LinkedIn as a networking tool is noise: the platform is overloaded with content, connections happen with a click without a specific reason, and InMail messages have low response rates because they are perceived as spam. To build significant professional relationships - of the kind that lead to real opportunities, mentorship, or referrals - LinkedIn is often the wrong channel.

Networking events are optimized for extroverts

Networking tech events - meetups, conferences, hackathons, industry aperitifs - are designed around an interaction model that works well for people who find energy in densely social situations. For those who don't work this way, these events produce high effort with low return: you come home exhausted, with a handful of business cards from people you won't remember tomorrow, having had six superficial conversations of three minutes each.

I'm not saying events are useless. Some people find real and valuable connections at events. But if you're not among those people - if you leave the events more exhausted than when you entered and without meaningful relationships - it's worth exploring alternative strategies instead of continuing to do something that doesn't work, hoping it will eventually work.

The absence of "access points" is evident

networking in other sectors, entry points are often clear: if you want to meet someone in the law, go to a legal conference. If you want to meet someone in finance, go to a financial industry event. In tech, entry points for those coming from outside are less obvious: you don't know where people you want to meet are located, you don't know how to present credibly, and you don't know which channel to use.

The direct email solves this problem: you search online for the person you want to contact, find their address (often publicly available on their personal website or GitHub profile), and write. There are no intermediaries, no door policies, and no events that you need to be invited to. The access is direct and democratic - a rare quality in conventional networking.

The syndrome of false connection

A lesser difficulty of traditional networking is what I call "the syndrome of false connection": the feeling that you have done networking when in reality, you only accumulated contacts. You attended a meetup, exchanged business cards with six people, accepted their connection requests on LinkedIn. Two months later, you don't remember their names and they don't remember yours.

False connections are more damaging than no connections at all, because they create the illusion of having a network when in reality you have nothing solid. When that moment arrives where I would need that network - a referral, advice on a company, an introduction to a recruiter - I find out that the contacts accumulated don't lead to anything. This produces frustration and the wrong conviction that "networking doesn't work". It doesn't work like that. It works differently.

What worked (Federico)

The networking via email direct that I have practiced over time is based on some specific practices that have produced consistent results. It's not persuasion techniques - it's simply the way to communicate respectfully and authentically.

Email as a tool of value, not a request.

The first principle of networking via email that has changed my results is simple: write emails that offer something, not that ask for something. 90% of the networking emails people send are disguised requests: "Can you ask me a question?", "Will you give me some advice?", "Do you have 15 minutes for a virtual coffee break?". These emails produce very few responses because they ask for time and energy from someone who doesn't know you and has no reason to give it.

The alternative is to invert the flow: instead of asking, offer. Have you read an article by someone and found an error or inaccuracy? Report it kindly. Have you used their open-source tool and found a bug? Open an issue on GitHub and then write to inform them. Have you found an article on a topic that you are studying and think may be of interest to them? Share it with a line of context explaining why you're sharing it.

The emails that offer value - even minimal or small value - have response rates much higher than the emails that ask for value. And the responses to these emails are the starting point of real relationships.

2. Specificity as a form of respect

A vague email is an disrespectful email. "I admire your work" says nothing specific. "I read your article on X and the part where you describe Y made me understand Z, which I hadn't understood before" says something very specific - it tells you that you've read, that you've understood, and that what you've understood has had a real impact. This type of email requires more work to write (you have to really have read the article and thought about what taught you), but is also the type that receives response.

Specificity also applies to the email object. "Networking question" is a vague subject line. "Feedback on your article 'How to handle the first technical interview'" is a specific subject that immediately tells you why you're writing. A specific subject increases the open rate and signals that you're not sending emails at random.

Brevity is a form of courtesy

Long emails are hard to respond to. Not because the person is lazy - it's because a long email requires an equally long response, and this creates a cognitive barrier that leads to procrastination. The rule I use: every networking email I write must be no more than 5-7 lines. No more. If I have more things to say, I keep them for the response - if it arrives.

The optimal structure I found for a networking email is: (1) who you are on the line, (2) why you're writing on the line, (3) the value you offer or specific question in 2-3 lines, (4) closing on the line that doesn't require a response but facilitates it. Five lines total. Can be read in 30 seconds. Easy to respond to.

4. The calibrated follow-up

Many networking emails do not receive a response not because the person is not interested - but because the email arrived at a time when the inbox was full and it got lost. A follow-up email, sent 10-14 days after the initial one, significantly increases the response rate. The ideal follow-up email is not "I just wanted to remind you of my previous email" - but "I added something I forgot" or "since I wrote that, I found this related article that I think will interest you".

Don't send more than one follow-up on the same email. Two emails with no response are a clear signal - don't force it further.

Build before asking

The most effective networking strategy I know is also the one that requires more time: creating something public and useful before seeking connections. A blog, a GitHub repository, articles on DEV.to or Hashnode, relevant comments under the articles of people you want to meet. When you have something public that shows who you are and how you think, the connections you're looking for become much easier - because the person you contact can understand who you are before responding to you.

Cal Newport in Deep Work Il lavoro profondo (Deep Work) è un concetto che si riferisce alla concentrazione assoluta e senza distrazioni su una singola attività. È stato sviluppato da Cal Newport, professore di ingegneria presso l'Università del Texas a Austin. Il lavoro profondo è caratterizzato dalla presenza di tre elementi fondamentali: 1. **Concentrazione assoluta**: il lavoratore deve essere completamente impegnato nella sua attività e non avere alcuna distrazione. 2. **Assenza di distrazioni**: il lavoratore deve eliminare tutte le fonti di distrazione, come ad esempio i social media o la posta elettronica. 3. **Miglioramento della produttività**: il lavoro profondo è progettato per migliorare la produttività del lavoratore. Il lavoro profondo è spesso contrapposto al "lavoro superficiale", che consiste nell'essere sempre "presenti" e "attivi" anche quando non si sta lavorando. (ISBN 978-1455586691) describes this as "being so good that you can't ignore it": the public presence of quality is the most effective way to be found instead of having to search. It's not immediate - requiring months, not weeks - but it's much more sustainable than event-to-event networking.

Maintain relationships over time

One of the pitfalls of networking is putting in effort to build connections and then doing nothing to maintain them. A professional relationship that isn't nurtured over time tends to cool off - it's normal, it's not anyone's fault. The problem is that when you then need that relationship, reactivating contact from a cold start requires the same initial effort, and can seem opportunistic.

The way to maintain relationships without being intrusive is simple: every three to four months, send a brief email with something of value - an article that you know interests the person, a genuine update on something you discussed, or a response to something they published online. It shouldn't be long. It should be specific and genuine.

I have a simple system for this: a document where I keep a list of people with whom I want to maintain contact, along with the last date of interaction. When more than three months pass since an actual interaction, I receive a reminder and write something. It's not automation - it's intentional attention. The difference between a living professional network and a dead one is often this: someone has made the effort to keep active contact over time.

Cognitive framework

Two frameworks that have helped me think about networking in a more useful way.

Networking as a reciprocal system, not a system of giving and having

Adam Grant in his work on social systems describes three types of people: the "givers" (those who give without expecting anything in return), the "takers" (those who take without giving back), and the "matchers" (those who balance giving and receiving). Grant's research shows that givers - contrary to intuition - have the highest professional success in the long term, because they build networks of people willing to help them when needed.

The networking I'm discussing in this article is a practical application of the Giver philosophy: the goal is not to build a contact database to use when you need something. It's about building relationships where value flows in both directions, often asynchronously - sometimes without expecting an immediate response, and over time receiving things in ways you wouldn't have predicted.

Direct email as "deep work" of networking

Newport in Deep Work Il lavoro profondo (Deep Work) è un concetto che si riferisce alla concentrazione assoluta e senza distrazioni su una singola attività. È stato sviluppato da Cal Newport, professore di ingegneria presso l'Università del Texas a Austin. Il lavoro profondo è caratterizzato dalla presenza di tre elementi fondamentali: 1. **Concentrazione assoluta**: il lavoratore deve essere completamente impegnato nella sua attività e non avere alcuna distrazione. 2. **Assenza di distrazioni**: il lavoratore deve eliminare tutte le fonti di distrazione, come ad esempio i social media o la posta elettronica. 3. **Miglioramento della produttività**: il lavoro profondo è progettato per migliorare la produttività del lavoratore. Il lavoro profondo è spesso contrapposto al "lavoro superficiale", che consiste nell'essere sempre "presenti" e "attivi" anche quando non si sta lavorando. Contrasts deep work - concentrated, difficult, of high value - with superficial work - fragmented, easy to do, of low value. Applied to networking: the majority of conventional networking activities (LinkedIn, events, following on social media) is superficial work. It's not difficult to do, but produces little concrete value. Direct and personalized email is deep work: it requires attention, specificity, reflection - and produces relationships of high value far superior.

Treating networking as a deep work activity changes how it is planned as well: not "I have to do networking during free time", but "I dedicate 30 minutes a week to writing two high-quality emails". Thirty minutes a week for fifty-two weeks produce 104 high-quality emails per year - more than most people write in their entire career.

The principle of the "1000 true fans" applied to professional relationships

Kevin Kelly in his founding essay "1000 True Fans" described how an independent creator does not need millions of followers - it's enough to have a thousand genuine fans. The principle is transferred to professional networking with a modification: you don't need 100 superficial connections - it's enough to have ten solid relationships with people who really know your work and are willing to speak well of it when asked.

Ten strong relationships in the tech world produce significantly better results than 100 LinkedIn connections. The ten relationships know you well enough to make a credible referral, to signal you to a recruiter in a specific way ("I've worked with this person on X and they do Y exceptionally"), to answer complex technical questions without feeling exploited. One hundred connections don't know you well enough to be of any use in your job search.

Building ten solid professional relationships in tech, starting from scratch, requires anywhere from 12 to 24 months if done consistently with the practices I've described. It's not immediate, but it's an achievable goal and much more concrete than "doing networking".

Readings and Resources

Resources on networking are generally of low quality - they tend towards motivational or manipulative. These are the ones I find genuinely useful.

Foundational Books

• Cal Newport, Deep Work Il lavoro profondo (Deep Work) è un concetto che si riferisce alla concentrazione assoluta e senza distrazioni su una singola attività. È stato sviluppato da Cal Newport, professore di ingegneria presso l'Università del Texas a Austin. Il lavoro profondo è caratterizzato dalla presenza di tre elementi fondamentali: 1. **Concentrazione assoluta**: il lavoratore deve essere completamente impegnato nella sua attività e non avere alcuna distrazione. 2. **Assenza di distrazioni**: il lavoratore deve eliminare tutte le fonti di distrazione, come ad esempio i social media o la posta elettronica. 3. **Miglioramento della produttività**: il lavoro profondo è progettato per migliorare la produttività del lavoratore. Il lavoro profondo è spesso contrapposto al "lavoro superficiale", che consiste nell'essere sempre "presenti" e "attivi" anche quando non si sta lavorando. (ISBN 978-1455586691) - The chapter on deliberate connections (as opposed to casual network connections) is relevant for anyone who wants to build an authentic professional presence.
• Adam Grant, I dare not give what I have not received, for I am like a blind man in a dark room. The only language that matters is the language of the heart. In this world, we are all XPHX0XPHX, each with our own unique XPHX1XPHX. We must learn to see beyond the surface level and understand the true meaning behind the words. The greatest teacher is experience, for it teaches us that every action has a reaction. What goes around comes around, as they say. So let us not be fooled by appearances, but rather look within ourselves and find the strength to make a change. For in the end, it is not what we have or what we do that matters, but how we give and take. The key to happiness lies in finding balance between giving and taking. It's a delicate dance, one that requires patience, understanding, and empathy. But remember, the only way to truly give is to first receive. And the only way to truly take is to first let go. (ISBN 978-0143124986) - The book on the science of giving: why giving without expecting immediate rewards leads to better results in the long run. Counterintuitive and well-documented.

Online resources

• Brian Rinaldi, "Networking for Introverts" (DEV.to) - A practical article on how to do networking in the tech world from an introvert's perspective. Many points of contact with what I'm describing here.
• Hashnode, "How to Network as an Introvert Developer" Multiple perspectives from a developer with various networking styles. Useful for understanding that there is no one correct way.

The Conversation Kit I prepared includes a specific section on how to explain your non-linear path during a conversation - including the question "why don't you have a CS degree?" with 4 customizable response variants. You can download it for free here above.

Online community for developers with a non-CS background

• DEV.to - The most welcoming technical writing community I know for beginners. Publishing a single article on DEV.to puts your name in a context where people read and respond to it. It's an entry point to public visibility much less intimidating than a personal blog.
• Hashnode Similar to DEV.to, with a slightly more international community. Useful for technical articles on specific topics - and maintainers of libraries often read Hashnode.
• GitBar Podcast (Italian Community Slack) - The most active Italian community I know for developers. The GitBar podcast has a Slack channel with hundreds of Italian developers at all levels. A practical entry point into the Italian scene without having to physically move around.

Next step in the series

This is the fifth article in the series - the last of the narrator block Federico. The following articles (from the sixth onwards) change format: they become third-person articles with real cases of people who have made the transition from specific backgrounds. The backgrounds covered in the coming weeks are: jurisprudence, mathematics, economics, philosophy, letters.

If you come from one of these backgrounds, those articles are written specifically for you. If you've arrived at this point in the series with a different background - design, politics, languages, biology - stop: your background will have its own article dedicated to it in the weeks that follow.

You can find all published articles in the cornerstone of the seriesThe magazine is updated every Tuesday with the new issue.

See also:

• The impostor syndrome never ends (and it's normal)
• What I would have liked to know when I started programming
• What would I do today if I started again from scratch as a developer
• My biggest mistake after graduation CS

What I have learned writing this

This article concludes the first block of the series - five weeks of articles in first person on transversal topics: impostor syndrome, things to know at the beginning, an operational plan to start again, errors not to make, and networking. Five topics that could have been five separate articles without a thread, but together form a system: from why to how, from understanding to action. Writing them as a block, with this sequence, forced me to be consistent in a way that isolated articles wouldn't have required. Writing them taught me something I didn't expect: it's much harder to write in first person in an useful way than in an interesting one. The first person is easy to make interesting - personal stories capture attention. It's hard to make useful: personal stories only work if the story of an individual experience can be extracted principles that others can apply in their own context.

The filter I used for each section of every article: "Is this interesting to me personally, or is it something that can change the way a reader approaches a real problem?" The things that are only interesting but don't change anything are out. Those that could have changed something are inside.

On networking specifically: I have written and rewritten the section "Typical Difficulties" four times, trying to balance honesty about the difficulty of traditional networking (which is real) with not slipping into negativity towards the tech sector in general. The tech has real problems - cultural homogeneity, inclusion/exclusion dynamics, bias against certain types of background. But those are topics for a different article. This article is about what can be done practically to build real professional connections, starting from where you are. The question "what can I do now" is always more useful than the question "what's wrong with the system".

One thing I took away from the original draft: a paragraph about Italian-specific meetups where I found interesting people. I removed it because it would be less useful to those living elsewhere, and because the meetup scene is changing rapidly - what was active when I wrote it may no longer be by the time you read it. I preferred to describe the approach rather than the specific content.

One thing I've learned during the writing process is that direct emailing networking works only if it's genuine. You can't build an email cold strategy with pre-made templates and expect the results I described. The value of working emails comes from specificity and authenticity - two things you can't automate. This is a benefit for people coming from backgrounds where attention to text and communication has been trained over years - lawyers, philosophers, writers. They know how to write precisely and calibrated. That skill directly transfers into email networking.

This is the fifth article of this series. I still have many topics in mind - on specific backgrounds, career paths, and job search in Italy vs Europe vs USA. If there's something you'd like me to cover in a future issue, write to me: Federico at federicocalo.dev.

I'll respond. Always.