An earlier version of this paper, under the title “Business Friends: Aristotle and Other Management Theorists on the Practice of Networking,” was read to the 25th Conference on Value Inquiry: Values in Business (Appalachian State University, April 1997). I profited from the ensuing discussion—especially from the comments of Gerald J. Williams and Chalmers C. Clark. I also wish to acknowledge the helpful suggestions and support of Daniel L. Orne, with whom I team-teach Business Ethics.

¹ The subject of some articles was the “network” within large organizations—the informal power structure, as contrasted with the formal organizational chart. The subject of most, however, was “networking” as discussed in this paper.

² “Networking 101: Seeing And Being Seen,” Nation’s Business, March 1996, p. 11.

³ Julie Bawden Davis, “Networking For Fun And Profit,” Nation’s Business, May 1994, p. 80.

⁴ Frank K. Sonnenberg, “How to Reap the Benefits of Networking,” The Journal of Business Strategy, January/February 1990, p. 59. Emphasis added.

⁵ Ford Harding, “How to Build a Network,” Journal of Accountancy, May 1996, p. 79. This passage continues with quite specific a suggestion:

⁶ Julie Bawden Davis, quoting James Johnson, in “Networking For Fun And Profit,” Nation’s Business, May 1994, p. 80. She continues,

⁷ Dawn M. Baskerville, “Power Networking,” Black Enterprise, July 1993. This insight is attributed to Anne Baber, Great Connections: Small Talk and Networking for Businesspeople (Manassas Park, Va.: Impact Publications, 1992).

⁸ “Networking 101: Seeing And Being Seen,” Nation’s Business, March 1996, p. 11.

⁹ Ibid. While no philosopher could oppose people’s having “open minds,” this “justification” does engender uneasiness.

¹⁰ J. E. Osborne, “Networking Know-How: Navigating in the Nineties,” Supervisory Management, May 1994, p. 1. Italics added—though perhaps not necessary.

¹¹ Ibid.

¹² I make no claim that these passages are “representative” of the entire literature on networking. Quite to the contrary, they have been selected to illustrate my (upcoming) theses about an Aristotelian analysis of networking. I could have included passages that were less coldly calculating. The contrast between “business friends” and “complete friends” would be less clear, less sharp. Nonetheless, it would endure.

¹³ Aristotle’s analysis of friendship relies heavily upon his theory of the virtues—indeed, it is not intelligible independent of it. Inevitably, then, elements of his theory of the virtues will creep into this discussion.

¹⁴ Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, trans. Terence Irwin (Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, 1985), p. 207. Subsequent references to Aristotle, from this source, will appear in the text in brackets.

¹⁵ Generally, “friendship” for Aristotle is a matter of reciprocated good will, combined with awareness of that reciprocated good will (see pp. 209–10).

¹⁶ This is neither the time nor the place for a full discussion of Aristotle’s claim that only the virtuous can be complete friends. I want to focus more narrowly, on a way to motivate this claim, a way to give it prima facie plausibility—especially if one is teaching this portion of the Nicomachean Ethics.

To be virtuous is to perform actions that exhibit the various Aristotelian means between extremes; to fail to be virtuous is to perform actions that exhibit (to various degrees, of course) the extremes: the extreme of excess, or the extreme of deficiency. Now reflect—as vividly as one can—on the lives and interests and activities of individuals whose actions typically fall far from the mean. In a non-rhetorical way, ask whether such people could initiate and maintain a relationship at all (setting aside for now the issue of the sort of relationship that Aristotle praises). The rash person and the coward would not be able to agree on any activities at all. Two rash people would be so competitive that their relationship would be unlikely to endure. Two cowards would have a dull life indeed. A relationship between a wasteful person and an ungenerous person might last a while, but seems doomed; two ungenerous people would continuously squabble about money. The lives of two insensible people would be joyless; two intemperate people would fight to satisfy their own appetites, at the expense of the satisfaction of the other’s appetites. Imagine the interactions between two irascible people. Continue the thought experiment for all the various combinations and permutations of the vices. And then begin thinking about people who exhibit two vices. And then three vices . . .

As this thought experiment continues, it becomes less and less believable that such people could continue a relationship, much less have it evolve into a “complete” friendship.

¹⁷ “These kinds of friendships are likely to be rare, since such people are few. Moreover, they need time to grow accustomed to each other; for, as the proverb says, they cannot know each other before they have shared the traditional [peck of] salt, and they cannot accept each other or be friends until each appears lovable to the other and gains the other’s confidence. Those who are quick to treat each other in friendly ways wish to be friends, but are not friends, unless they are also lovable, and know this. For though the wish for friendship comes quickly, friendship does not” (213).

¹⁸ Of course it is possible that a particular person is able to satisfy a particular need at some point in time, and is also able to satisfy a different need at a subsequent time. This does no damage to the broad claim that, over time, we will witness significant changes in the set of our utility friends.

¹⁹ Ford Harding, “How to Build a Network,” p. 79.

²⁰ Ibid.

²¹ For an argument that the formulations are equivalent, see James W. Ellington, trans., Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals (Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Co, 1981), p. vii.

²² Kant, p. 36.

²³ Manuel G. Velasquez, Business Ethics: Concepts and Cases, Fourth Edition (Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1998), p. 96. Internal cites omitted.

²⁴ See Aristotle, p. 214.

²⁵ I consider this paper a work in applied moral philosophy: the application of classical philosophical texts to moral issues that arise in contemporary business life.

I teach Business Ethics in an executive M.B.A. program. My students are not undergraduates, but business professionals—not people who are thinking about “networking” when they graduate, but people who are actively engaged in the practice. The session devoted to Aristotle on friendship is both difficult and enlightening for many of them, especially those in selling and purchasing. They are forced to think about the time and energy they devote to business friendships—and the extent to which their true friendships may have been allowed to languish.