by Rick Baker
On Jun 13, 2010
Recently, I posted 3 blogs about '
People Networking' [
#1,
#2,
#3].
After posting the blogs, I asked some LinkedIn friends to look at the blogs and provide their feedback about what I had written and provide input about what they thought I ought to write next.
I notice a few readers 'rated' these blogs…and, overall, they were rated rather low. [I have dealt with that as best I can by (1) committing to improve my writing and by (2) recommending to some other friends they should use my blogs as a remedy for their insomnia.]
Back to People Networking…
First: to my LinkedIn friends who provided their thoughts to help me and others…Thank You!
Here is a summary of the
LinkedIn-friends feedback I received about
People Networking:
- I agree with your analysis of the two extremes of networking. When I began networking, I definitely fell into the latter group, i.e. the ones who go into a shell. You don't mention the third type of networker, i.e. the one who actually knows how to network, but I assume you will cover that in future instalments.
I don't necessarily disagree with the inner-directed questions to ask yourself, but I'm not sure it's the best place to start. For one thing, when it comes to the first type of networker who grabs everyone to explain to them why they should be clients, many of them would give themselves a 10 as networkers, even if they are really a 2. The self-assessment won't work, in other words, if you don't first know what a good networker does.
For me, my turnaround came when I realized that networking is not about what you can do for me. It's about what I can do for you. As soon as I changed to an outer-directed focus, I came out of my shell. There was nothing to cringe about if I focused on how I can help the other guy.
- Yes I agree but I think it is deeper than that.
You concluded: "Networking is meeting new people and re-meeting people in a business or social context."
I would extend that beyond "meeting" to "developing a relationship with". A relationship can be, as you said, both social and business, but it goes beyond meeting which is often one-way (you introducing yourself to them) to a two-way commitment where you learn more about each other and start looking for ways to add value to each other. This builds trust over time - which from my perspective is the ultimate goal of networking. Once trust is established, an opportunity may present itself.
- Great way to drive traffic!
- I agree with your description of the two extremes of networking, the proverbial shrinking violets on the one hand and the gregariousness personified on the other hand. As a former shrinking violet, what works for me is to understand that effective networking starts and ends with providing value. It's not about me, it's about what can I do for someone, something, the world. Doing this consistently establishes credibility and provides the basis for a productive relationship that engenders trust. For me, meeting and re-meeting people in a business or social context is not a satisfactory goal, it is only a tool. The goal of networking, for me, is to develop relationships based on providing mutual value.
- I'm not sure I agree with your definition of networking. Simply making and remaking contacts doesn't really add value. A network consists of a series of connections. The stronger those connects the better the network.
In your example you explain that networking starts by looking at your own personality and development. I don't think that's where people should start. I think people should network with the intent of helping the other person. Help them smile, help them learn something, help them meet someone that is better able to help them. I would much rather network with someone that is more interested in what other people have to say than someone that knows how to nod at the appropriate time.
In business I work on a simple axiom - people buy from people. Regardless of whether it is offline or online the idea of helping others will take you much further than polishing your presentation skills.
This confirms:
- My LinkedIn friends who provided feedback understand others have a wide range of ways of approaching networking: some are shrinking violets, some are gregariousness personified, some people think they are excellent at networking when really they are not, and some other folks are excellent at networking.
- The friends who provided feedback think my definition 'Networking is meeting new people and re-meeting people in a business or social context' is not sufficient because it does not capture the goal/intent of networking. My friends believe the goal/intent of networking is
- helping the other person and/or helping the other person smile and/or
- providing value and/or
- it's not about me, it's about what can I do for someone else and/or
- adding value and/or
- making strong connections and/or
- developing relationships based on providing mutual value and/or
- even more than building relationships it is growing a two-way commitment and building trust over time
- My friends who provided feedback had differing views about my statement regarding the starting point. I had stated:
So, the first Networking step is spending some time thinking about oneself:
- What are my interpersonal strengths?
- What are my interpersonal weaknesses?
- Have I educated myself and learned enough about 21st Century networking?
- What do the results of my past-actions tell me about my networking skills?
- On a scale of 1-to-10, how do I rate my networking talent?
Overall, it seems the friends who provided feedback are at least a little uncomfortable with the starting point I suggested.
So, in my next blog in this series - blog #5 - I will make [and discuss] some adjustments to my definition of People Networking and I will revisit 'the starting point'. In the meantime, if you have any suggestions about these things then please let me know.