Back to the question of the human network

Back to the question of the human network... I know that the "7 degrees" metaphor has been done to death but it makes a good reference point for this discussion.
I have conceptualized this metaphor using a lesson learned back in my Sesamie Street days. (Another time I'll talk about growing up in NYC during the pilot run of SS.) Recall Grover, that happy-go-lucky boppin' dude. One of my favourite sketches was his "near... far" routine. He was only interested in teaching 3-year-olds a binary concept of relative location. I have found that by adding a middle value, we avoid Grover's (likely unintentional) perpetuation of the 'Law of the Excluded Middle.
There are, then, 3 ranges of network relatedness: near, in-between, and far. In my concrete-sequential mind, I frame these as near = people in the 1 degree of separation zone; in-between = people in the 2 - 5 degrees of separation zone; and far = the rest of the world.
So, I presume that the people in the near zone are all people with whom you have enough of a relationship with to correct any problems or miscommunications. However, much of the work that an individual in a distributed/networked working environment has to deal with are those in the in-between zone. The big question is how do we make enough of a connection with these people that we aren’t seen as existing too far out of their in-between to far zones?