I think one important step is to genuinely care about people and what's happening in their lives and being in interested in just knowing them, whether or not they are useful to you immediately.
Most good networkers I've seen are very much interested in people, whether or not they can be useful to them. They will speak to everyone in the social hierarchy, and remember important details about their lives. While this may not be "necessary" to gain some advantage from networking, I don't think you can do this long-term without just deriving pleasure out of just getting to know other human beings and learning from their experiences.
I agree that "good" (as in, succesful) networkers speak to everyone and remember little details about everyone.
However, the best networker I know (we call him "el trepador", that would be "the climber") spends a disproportionate amount of time on his superiors.
It's incredible the amount of time he spends networking or at social events, when he was at the company I work for he learned the President's and CEOs favourite sports and activities, organized an in-company tournament of the President's favourite sport, played golf with the CEO, played football (soccer) with his coworkers, organized outings, invited other CxOs to barbecues at his house.. he hardly had a night to himself. He also kept track of everyone he met at any kind of event.
He was hired as a programmer, but he managed to avoid any kind of task that involved working in the backend and always maneuvered to work in client-facing or high profile tasks, his favourite trick was building a fancy (but simple) web interface on top of complicated backends (and getting designer time, which was key), which usually resulted on his getting most of the credit.
He's now a CEO (at another company in the group of companies which he's buddies with the president), and he has no university degree and didn't spend any time studying - at the same time he was doing all that stuff, I was working towards an MBA and spent about as much time after work as he did, his time investment definitely paid off a lot better.
He pretty much played by the rulebook outlined by this article:
- " Be flagrant in your pursuit of the powerful and the soon-to-be-powerful, and when you have their attention, praise them to the skies"
- " Discover similar interests or experiences." he did that
- "you need to work hard at networking" he did that, he put an incredible amount of effort at networking after hours, managing events, organizing dinners and barbecues, etc...
He was a bit of a douche, mostly by shirking low-visibility projects and getting disproportionate amounts of credit - he didn't shirk "hard" projects per se, but he'd only take them if they were very high visibility, and he'd priorize small but visible over obscure but necessary work.
He was also very good at getting credit without being obvious about getting other people's credit.
However, he did put in the hours, and he is a very good motivator and very charismatic. He was just very good at playing the game.
It doesn't sound like he's not doing anything useful. In fact, it sounds like he has a strong idea of how business works. Lots of people can do the job (unless you're doing something super technical), the person who gets the job and the credit for it is usually the one who gets along best with the people in charge. Its not about a flaw in the system, it's about acknowledging how the world works and acting accordingly.
Why hate for the game? The dude sounds like he's really good at what's he doing, and I think that the company that he leads will profit a lot from his skills. Would be a shame to keep a person like that in engineer position.
Indeed, I thought he was going to make an excellent presales consultant or sales guy, he was wasted at a "junior programmer" position. He vastly exceeded my expectations.
That kind of skills are pretty good for a CEO, I'll give you that.
But I've seen another CEO at work with the same general style (oodles of charisma, very strong networker, no studies or technical background) and he really messes up technical and financial decisions, he basically has to blindly believe whatever his CFO or CIO say (and the CIO messed up pretty often, the CFO seems pretty solid OTOH).
An actual example: he spent an entire meeting speaking about returns on "bonuses", buying "bonuses", etc.. when he meant "bonds" (he was blindly parroting what the CFO told him, only he messed up).
A programmer in a management or CEO role could make the lives of every programmer underneath him better. After all, he actually knows how to make software. By extension, he knows what's possible and what's not, what's reasonable schedule-wise and what's not. Most managers/CEOs don't.
Does he? It sounds like he avoided responsibility for anything that might have carried risk, and only picked easy wins with good visibility in order to make himself look good.
I know there are people who climb the ladder in the manner in which you state. Is this guy one of them? Maybe. Maybe not. But one thing is certain: at the very least, he has the base minimal understanding of the software life cycle, which is always beneficial in a manager. Even one who shirks responsibility for visibility. ;)
Sure, but assuming he is such a person, you are implying that this minimal understanding of the software life cycle is better for engineers at his company than integrity and a desire to see engineers justly rewarded for their efforts. I doubt that.
you are implying that this minimal understanding of the software life cycle is better for engineers at his company than integrity and a desire to see engineers justly rewarded for their efforts.
I implied no such thing. I'm making a generalization. Your statements so far consist of "Yes, but what if he's an irredeemable sociopath? It's better to have a non-sociopath who doesn't understand software than a sociopath who does." I agree with that, but those aren't the only two options on the table and I refuse to believe the worst in somebody I've never met and only know through an anecdote in a hacker news comment.
Neither of us are making judgements about an actual named person here. We are talking about an example that was given. This stance of 'I refuse to believe the worst in someone based on anecdote' is disingenuous.
That example included a detailed description of the ways the person achieved advancement, which fit the characterization I gave.
It sounds like he avoided responsibility for anything that might have carried risk
That directly contradicts the description GFisher gave, which was "he didn't shirk "hard" projects per se, but he'd only take them if they were very high visibility". You can't take projects without assuming responsibility and you can only say they carried no risk unless you assume that any and all high visibility tasks were low to no risk. I can speak from experience and say that's very much not true.
It sounds like you've projected onto him your disdain for people that move up ladders instead of make things. And you don't even realize it.
Nope - you have quoted out of context, deliberately ignoring: "He was a bit of a douche, mostly by shirking low-visibility projects and getting disproportionate amounts of credit..."
Which has nothing to do with assuming or not assuming responsibility. This is known as moving goalposts.
You'll notice I've said absolutely nothing about whether or not he assumed disproportionate amounts of credit. That kind of thing is murky at best. How do you measure credit? Is it something your boss gives you because he likes you or is it something you actively vie for? In some cases it can be one, some the other but in most cases it's a little of both.
You still haven't admitted even a little bias, despite being shown your quite obvious bias in at least one context.
You said nothing about whether he assumed disproportionate amounts of credit, but you didn't have to because that is a given since it was stated by the original poster. Now you are trying to discredit that part of the description by saying it is hard to judge. May I remind you that we are discussing an example presented by someone else. If you choose to selectively discredit parts of the given description to suit your position, we are no longer discussing the same example. Perhaps you believe that nobody ever assumes more credit than they deserve.
I admit that I am biased against people who assume disproportionate amounts of credit as CEO. I think that is a highly undesirable trait in any kind of manager.
> I'd call him a douche, but this is a clear case of don't hate the player, hate the game.
In other words: put too much effort in networking, and hate yourself for being a douche. Put too little effort in networking and hate yourself for missing out on opportunities.
Like most things in life, it's about finding a balance that works for you.
He was REALLY good at getting management signoff for expenses and subcontrating... that is an incredibly valuable skill to have, to be sure, but it sucks if it's one-sided (other projects had such requests denied).
He personally did very little programming or designing himself (I guess that does make him a good manager :) )
I agree, and this is why I don't do very much of it. It's pretty exhausting to keep up a charade of caring about people in order to come by opportunities so it's better if you really care about them. I don't really know how people do that part, though.
It's easy actually - once you realise that everyone new you meet has an interesting story, and that you can learn something new from pretty much everyone, you automatically start caring about them. Humbling experience actually - even the people that others sometimes term as "unambitious" or "not-very-productive" have their own priorities in life and can give you a unique perspective about things.
Authentic leaders are the most successful networkers - there is no effort in their ability to connect, genuinely, with others.
A great example of this is this type of leader is Ron Conway - actually, great article from yesterday "The Ronco Principle" by PG.
One thought this article does not contemplate is the impact of people who are not self-aware. There are many people I have met who truly believe they are great networkers, but they lack the leadership trait of authenticity.. be afraid, very afraid.
"Shameless" really does seem to me the best word to describe the most important aspect of networking. Or at least, the hardest part - once you've read How to Win Friends and Influence People, it's still really tough to approach strangers or ask acquaintances for introductions.
Carnegie doesn't teach you how to get over that. The only thing I can think of that might is Theater; acting or improv classes. But I'd be very curious to hear how others have overcome social inhibitions and learned to go for it.
One piece of advice that helped me immensely at events: pretend (internally, mind you), that you're the host of the event. If your objective ends up being "make sure everyone is enjoying themselves", it becomes easier to see (people who are in an approachable state) and (not be the guy to ruin a good conversation).
Maybe this is a "low-hanging fruit" of conversing, but better than nothing.
I'm surprised nobody has mentioned Toastmasters. It's an org designed to help you with your communication skills from on the spot talking about random things to full blown prepared speeches. I'm naturally comfortable speaking to random people and in large settings, but when I joined my companies Toastmasters club it helped me take my skills to the next level. And it was a great way to meet other people both in our company but in other company's as I did competitions and other events.
Back when I was in college in a Christian organization we would pair up and go share the gospel with other students on campus.
One technique that worked surprisingly well for me was that one of the pair would pick the person that the other would have to go up to and try to converse with.
Somehow that created the feeling of a dare that I could get into, even though if I had been considering talking to the person on my own, I would have talked myself out of it.
A friend of mine is the best salesman I know. He attributes his success to griwing up as a Jehovah's Witness, with mandatory door to door proselytizing every weekend. Rejection doesn't phase him in the slightest.
That's the same reason why there are so many sales organizations in Salt Lake City. Nothing trains you to get over rejection like trying to sell religion door to door.
I've been intrigued as to why Mormons have such an seemingly disproportionate "success" rate, and ended up doing a bit of research on the matter. It really seems like it comes down to facing failure repeatedly. And most of them get the experience when they're around college age as well. I've been trying to figure out how we could build something secular into normal primary education that would achieve the same result.
It's already done at many schools for fundraisers. Things like having the kids sell chocolates or magazine subscriptions. Also girl scouts with their cookies.
People buy that stuff just to help out kids though. Going door to door selling a 'magical candy bar' that can radically change someone's life for eternity would be much harder. I guess part of that is also conviction in what you are selling.
Much of the time it's the parents doing the pushing, and the kids in tow for the "do it for the children" factor. The kids probably don't really know what's going on, and don't have to take direct responsibility for any of it.
The only thing I can think of that might is Theater; acting or improv classes.
Actually I think you nailed it. For me it was both giving briefings to executives and leaders, which ended up driving me to have the confidence to try my hand at stand-up comedy. If you want to bathe in fire of getting over talking to people cold there is no better way.
While I still feel this exact kind of "making the approach" inhibition from time to time, I think the way I've gotten over it is to build up a history of cases where I just sucked it up and did it and was able to look back and realize that hey, it wasn't so bad! Oh, going with a friend really really really helps too! One of you makes the approach but just having the friendly face to fall back will enable a soft landing.
That being said, starting out in less challenging settings is definitely the way to go (ex: if you don't like loud bars, don't practice getting better at approaching at loud bars! Try programming meetups or interest meetups where the ambiance is more natural to you are likely to have things in common with the people there).
The emotional side of the equation is to have a history of success that you can draw on for courage. The rational side is to know and repeat to yourself that it's a numbers game just like dating. At "networking" type of settings, I personally expect to meet one interesting person with whom I'll have a sustained relationship with every 2 hours. There will be many friendly people along the way where we will mutually forget each other after 2 days, and that's just the way it is.
> going with a friend really really really helps too
My experience has been exactly the opposite. It is much better to not have a friend with you. Whether at a computer conference, backpacking through Europe, or trying to meet the opposite sex, starting alone has always been better for me.
Typical problems that comes up if you're with a friend:
- You're more likely to sit there talking only to your friend. This is the biggest problem.
- If you're brushed off by whoever you meet, it feels awkward to return to your friend, explain what happened, and try to resume your earlier conversation.
- If the person you meet suggests going for coffee or you get involved in long conversation, what do you do about your friend. Ignore him? Tell him to wait? Ask him to join you even if he's not interested in the person you met or topic you're discussing? You can end up looking rude in so many ways.
- If you're with a friend, you yourself become less approachable by others.
I agree with the rest of what you said, but it's funny that the "friend" part is 100% different for me.
So I think approaching groups with a friend is good for someone who is so frozen and so afraid that he/she would never be able to make an approach in the first place.
But I completely agree with the problems you listed when being attached to a friend at the hip and have suffered that collateral damage as well myself.
The rule is that if you want to approach groups then you should be a group. If you want to approach individuals then you should be alone. There's some truth to that, I think.
Find a common interest, something that you would enjoy doing alone and that you know the other people you are meeting with will enjoy as well.
Theater (or any other activities) might work if you are genuinely interested in it, but if it's just an excuse to meet other people maybe you won't enjoy it as much, and you will be less likely to stick with it.
Meetup is a great resource: find meeting groups for hackatons if you are a techie, running groups if you are a jock, language learning, cooking groups...
Acting and improv classes can help—you have to talk to people to do it—but it can also be a bit different. In both of those you're in a pretty specific role (even improv has a lot of training wheels at the start) and there are common forms; getting comfortable making crazy stuff up on stage in front of a bunch of strangers is still a bit different than selling to strangers in a professional or social capacity. The big thing you need to do—not care if you end up making yourself look stupid—is the same, but the contexts are different enough that to me they're pretty separate.
So for me it is just forcing myself to be social. Repeatedly. Still! It won't happen overnight, but after a while you hopefully will notice changes.
"But I'd be very curious to hear how others have overcome social inhibitions and learned to go for it."
Small steps. Your first event you know no one. Meet one person, and then next time you visit you have someone to at least say hello to, buy a drink for, or sit and talk/eat with.
It never gets easier for the socially awkward, but soon you build a network of people who "know you" and networking becomes a much more comfortable environment. You also find out, that others are just as anxiety ridden as you. You start to recognize "noobs" and see their anxiety... which is another good opportunity to help and network by initiating contact with this people.
Here's how you get over it: exposure to the thing you fear.
Theater, acting and improv are all awesome ways to get exposure to social pressure in a positive environment! I'd also recommend dance classes, particularly partner dances like salsa and tango.
Learning to talk to women helped me. I'm still not perfect but I used to have intense social anxiety in my late teens and early twenties. At age 26, a lot of people would describe me as confident and outgoing (it does take a lot of energy).
Exposure does two great things:
- Teaches you that rejection does not kill you. If ask a girl out or ask someone to invest in your company the right way, even if they say no they'll respect you more. If you ask the wrong way and it goes horribly, life goes on and you'll feel more self-respect for having tried. :)
- Gives you positive reference experiences. It takes time to get them, but they are truly the fruit of laboring at improving an anxiety. I still get nervous before first dates and I've gone on a lot of them. Recalling all the good ones I've had doesn't make the nerves go away, but it makes them wayy less intense. Same deal with ambitious engineering projects. I'm still nervous before them, but I've succeeded in spite of nerves before so I can definitely do it again.
Putting exposure into a wider context, there are a lot of therapeutic approaches to treating anxiety—all the successful ones have substantial exposure components. I went through CBT for anxiety but the cognitive component is mostly there to help you productively process experiences when doing the behavioral component, exposure. Another interesting modality is systematic desensitization [1]. I'm a huge nerd so I got a kick out of making exercises for myself (eg. go tell 5 girls that they look really cute today) that took me through a systematic desensitization process.
A random sidenote, once I got past my own insecurities I was able to pay more attention to whoever I was talking to. You start to notice their insecurities! Everyone's got em! Very attractive girls will be self conscious about their braces. Speaking specifically to professional networking, everyone is trying to impress each other but you don't have to let it affect you. I talked to a cousin of mine this christmas that has had extreme success. He sold a business for more than $40M in his twenties. I just chewed the fat with him and listened and he was trying to impress me, a definite tell for insecurity! My business doesn't make anywhere near that much. I can feed myself lol.
Getting out of your own head and over your insecurities is difficult but totally worth it. Keep at it!
There's some good advice in this article, I do a fair amount of networking so consider myself somewhat of an expert in the field. I'm not comfortable networking, but it's required for my local market and B2B business model.
"Be flagrant in your pursuit of the powerful and the soon-to-be-powerful, and when you have their attention, praise them to the skies."
That's one strategy, there's also the "hard to get" strategy. Successful people get "sold to" and flattered all the time and are generally sick of it or at least aware. In my networking, sometimes I will specifically avoid the alpha of the room, and build contacts around them, possibly leading to a more qualified introduction. Found it works better than the direct approach "I'm a huge fan" tactic.
For me, a person who isn't a natural networker, this article seems to be missing a key element: what's the objective?
Reading articles like these is like reading the underpants gnome plan in South Park: 1. Network 2. ??? 3. Profit
Can somebody explain what step 2 is? For instance, I have a handful of very successful acquaintances. I always think there must be some way to leverage them, but I have no clue to what end. This is probably a really obvious and stupid question to most people, but completely eludes me.
You get a job offer without sending an application.
You get a contract offer out of the blue.
You hear of some great event, you would have missed otherwise.
You get invited somewhere, you would not have had access to.
You have more people to pitch for funding/investment.
You have more people to show your side project to.
In general, I think it mostly increase the amount of opportunities you receive. Note that most of those opportunities are probably crap/spam. Nevertheless, if you found a profitable game, it helps to play it more often.
I like Derek Sivers' take on it. Your next big break is going to come from someone you know, so get out there and know people.
Be helpful, and make sure people know what value you can create/provide. And they'll make the referral, often in valuable situations you can't even foresee or imagine.
Common question, not stupid at all. The answer in my experience:
2. Give (and Trust)
I'm not a fan of networking, but that's a long story I'm in the process of writing up. For any relationship building, however, the key to 'Profit' (whatever that means for you) is to give first. If you don't want to give - the relationship won't work. And if nobody wants to give ... Well, that's why most networking groups don't achieve 3. Profit
2a. You get more opportunities to network. The more people you talk to, the more people you get to talk to. (The opposite is also true: if you don't network, eventually you will be sidelined and spend your life alone, lonely and shivering in your cube, not using whatever skills, talents, or assets that you might have spent the time developing.)
Then, either:
2b1. While networking, you find an opportunity to use the wonderful skills or talents that you have. Yay! Win!
or
2b2. People know you. People like you. Even if you have no particular skills, talents, or assets, you will be given responsibilities. If you don't screw them up and keep networking, you will be given more. Yay! Win!
[Edit: This is all theoretical; I only have actual knowledge of the "lonely and shivering in your cube" part. I chose to pass the test, to diminish, and to remain Gladriel. 'Tis better to reign in my own personal hell than smooze in heaven.]
Let them know if/when you're looking to change job, or ask them for introductions if there is someone that could be useful to know for your work. And make sure to reciprocate by offering up advice or help or introductions when you think something might be of use to them.
You might be surprised what might pop up.
E.g. almost all my jobs have been referrals from connections or people who I've worked with, or even who have worked for me, that have later hired me another place, but in several cases they didn't realise I might be an option until I made it clear I was looking. Don't assume friends will seek you out for jobs etc. just because it's a fit - they may think you're happy where you are and don't want to be presumptuous, or it may simply not have occurred to them.
As someone who feels he has been really held back because of his fear of networking I think you have the order wrong:
1.??? 2. Network 3. Profit
Where 1. could be all sorts of things - come up with amazing business idea, write a book, start a new job, send your child to school (annoyingly, if you get on well with other parents at school, you child is more likely to be invited to birthday parties etc...), need some help decorating your house, etc..
There can be overlap! I work with nerds and tend to befriend nerds (though certainly not exclusively), so it's no surprise that sometimes the spheres overlap.
Uhmm, while that article has some useful advice, some parts of it made me feel genuinely uncomfortable. For example:
"Reward the self-styled “thought leaders” in each session by adding them to your Twitter “follow” list. "
Really? Part of the reason I barely use linkedin anymore is because the essays/thinkpieces people post on that site are so incredibly self indulgent and empty of content. Everyone there is so transparently trying to emulate the style and content of a Thomas Friedman column, while painting themselves in an amazing light. It's reached the point where if an article has the word 'leadership' in the title, I assume it will be garbage.
I actually despise the artificiality of networking so much I wrote my own tool to optimize it and automate it, and used it at a conference I helped organize: http://elifesciences.org/content/3/e02273
Business is built on a lot of fragile things. Your business consists of your mutual obligations: What others are obliged to do for you, and what you are obliged to do for them.
To that end, of course, the "speed run" strategy for building a business involves roping a whole lot of people into various tenuous obligations, delivering enough on your promises that the whole thing doesn't collapse, and then terminating contact with people as they cease to further your life plans [0].
The survival truth is that if you were going to behave socially like most mammals do, you'd remain shy and hesitant before trying to interact with a stranger - you'd keep physical distance, take a gentle posture, run away if startled, and only gradually get closer. And in a group, you wouldn't try to push other members around too casually, lest they catch on and get you exiled.
But what we keep telling ourselves is to encourage trade with everyone from the first instant, which is ripe for aggressive strategies like the ones depicted in the article, and also more opaquely predatory ones like panhandling, cons, blackmail, or protection rackets. It's so ingrained that we can barely see how toxic and abusive an environment it creates.
You can do business the slow way. It takes a lot longer, you miss a lot more opportunities, and it diminishes your probability of being part of the global elite from "slim" to "none", but you'll also rest easier at night, and you're less likely to be taken in by someone who will use your good nature against you.
Edit: And I should add that sometimes you can find a good, solid reason to step up and socialize - just, you need to plan it in advance with the understanding that you're going to be making win-wins.
I actually think that the "intent" is what makes is phony and fake, not the skills or techniques employed. I think I use some of these techniques (or "rules of thumbs for conversation" -- albiet not as extreme) with some people I'm friendly with because I genuinely want them to enjoy the conversation and our time together.
I sincerely do not want or expect any favors or benefits from them. If we're in a setting that begets conversation and I know that we don't have tooo much in common, I'm going to go out of my way to make the conversation enjoyable for them, because their enjoyment of the conversation will make the conversation enjoyable for me as well.
The alternative is often either side taking turns about subjects that the other person has no interest in, and those conversations don't do any good for either person.
"The first principle for would-be networkers is to abandon all shame. Be flagrant in your pursuit of the powerful and the soon-to-be-powerful, and when you have their attention, praise them to the skies. Academic research has found that people’s susceptibility to flattery is without limit and beyond satire. In a study published in 1997, B.J. Fogg and Clifford Nass of Stanford University invited people to play a guessing game with a computer, which gave them various types of feedback as they played. Participants who received praise rated both the computer and themselves more highly than those who did not—even those who had been warned beforehand that the machine would compliment them regardless of how well they were doing. Yes, even blatantly insincere, computer-generated flattery works."
The two aren't mutually exclusive. You can be genuinely interested in what somebody has to say, and still plan to use them later.
Don't kid yourself into thinking they wouldn't do the same for you -- instead, think of it as a mutual agreement to provide services to each other when needed.
More like a mutual agreement to request services from each other when they are required.
E.g. to ask you if you want a particular contract (when it needs to be fulfilled regardless). Not to 'come up' with a contract because your 'bro' is out of work.
I go to work conferences and speak with people about work. Otherwise I seem to have very little in common with them. They are probably not who I would be friends with outside of work, but hey, next time I see them at a conference, its always nice to see a familar face, and I am sure the same thing works for them.
You are apparently not a long-time subscriber. The Economist can be a hoot - not in the front-page articles, but there are many well written, funny stories (and they often use innuendo)
Although successful networkers must be calculating, ruthless and shameless, they do better
when they somehow make it all seem spontaneous, accidental even
A couple of years back I was working with a guy who had grown a consulting shop into 70-80 folks. I was helping with sales into an existing client. The deal was I'd help do the sell and then I'd pick up a few months of work to add to my runway for my startup.
We needed another consultant, so the main office sent us some candidates. The guy I was working with immediately picks the one with the most connections, even though his skills weren't a good match. When I mentioned this, he said "Yeah, but it's not important whether his skills match. We need his network." If you're looking to grow a business, it's all about finding people with good networks and mining their contacts.
This guy continues to do very well in the business, and now he has a huge network, but there's always that slight feel of inauthenticity about him. It's nothing that anybody would point out, and it doesn't prevent him generating business. It's just there.
Contrast this to me. I follow and try to be friends with people because, well, I like them. I like what they're doing and I want to hear more about what's happening in their lives. My network is not very huge, but my goal is to get to know folks and have them get to know me, so it can never be that huge.
I'm not saying my way is right and this other guy's is wrong, but I am much happier doing it my way than if I did things the way this other guy did. The minute I start feeling like I'm conniving? I'm doing something wrong.
Business is by nature inauthentic. None of us would be there doing the work if we didn't need to earn money to live. I'm really not sure why everyone expects authenticity, passion, etc in business and work. It's all a charade.
> The first principle for would-be networkers is to abandon all shame. Be flagrant in your pursuit of the powerful and the soon-to-be-powerful, and when you have their attention, praise them to the skies.
I'm reading "How to win friends and influence people" right now. The author would disagree. He would recommend compliments, not flattery. Compliments are sincere, flattery is transparent brown-nosing that makes you lose credibility. I'm paraphrasing the book not giving my opinion: I have no idea what I'm doing.
That said this is very relevant to me because I've recently quit working as a full time employee for 10 years and want to have a go at consulting for companies. I jumped in head first and it has not gone as smoothly as I would like. My biggest issue so far is I don't know where to go to network with the people that I should be talking to. I can go to free networking events with founders of companies, but all of them seem to be at the pre-funding stage and can only pay me in equity. I'm looking for people that can pay in cash. Any advice would be appreciated.
I read that same sentence "abandon all shame" and it is where I have had reservations and probably holding me back in making connections.
I know I am busy and don't feel like I should be wasting other people's time with trivial pursuits when in reality they are probably thinking the same.
I would take a engineer / scientific approach. Adopt one methodology at some events and use flattery / shamelessness at another. Compare results.
The title makes this seem very sinister, but having read through it, I actually think that a lot of these "skills" are basic conversation skills that can be used in non-networking settings as well.
Personally, I've used them at holiday parties to engage in civil conversation with other guests, or even young children guests.
The non-print is 10x slower to load, renders something you need to close in front of it first, and renders a lot of useless stuff around it.
The print link, despite the inconvenience of having to close a print dialog, is SOOOOO much better. Why aren't all websites like that? As a bonus, it works on mobile too, since it's only what is needed and wraps at the side of the screen: the text.
I prefer to imagine I am a consultant for "figuring out the world".
Often times I come across a problem inside an organisation and take it upon myself to dig down to the bottom and sort I out - happily introducing myself to HR or accounts or sales just following the trail. I seem to have no social blockers because I am working for the same company and therefore there is already a common aligned interest.
For networking that crosses organisational boundaries it's harder - but I try to remember we all have an interest in a better world.
If you volunteer to help organize a large event, one side effect is that you will talk to many strangers while sorting out logistical details. It removes pressure and provides your emotional brain with many data samples of successful interactions with strangers, which will come in useful in future approach situations.
"Be flagrant in your pursuit of the powerful and the soon-to-be-powerful, and when you have their attention, praise them to the skies." - Isn't this one of the Ferengi Rules of Acquisition?
Let's be honest; Most people network in order to gain something--period. That something is wealth(an individual
who is wealthy can be financially wealthy, good genes--yes I will take that over money, or has something of value(teach me?) the Networker desires.) I have a sister who lived her life networking before it had a title. Yes, she is financially successful, but no one really likes
her--that includes ex-husbands, "friends", and I think, her kids are losing respect every year they age? That's the networking I grew up with. This new type of networking--where the objective is finding friends; I think is wonderful.
I just don't see it. The networking I see is still ugly, and
so obvious. Good luck, I personally couldn't stomach it.
Most good networkers I've seen are very much interested in people, whether or not they can be useful to them. They will speak to everyone in the social hierarchy, and remember important details about their lives. While this may not be "necessary" to gain some advantage from networking, I don't think you can do this long-term without just deriving pleasure out of just getting to know other human beings and learning from their experiences.