Quote from Lucio Buffalmano on December 26, 2022, 3:59 am

We already spoke of Bel's approach to getting the most out of the forum (and the people in it, me included).

It also ended in PU (see it there for more).

Now I noticed another good example.

Notice what Bel did here:

Quote from Bel on December 25, 2022, 6:48 pm

Thank you Maverick,

your post is on point and spurred some reflection here below.

(....)

I lately tended to do exactly what you say, ie equalize the field on the next encounter.

(....)

After reading your answer, and after something similar happened to me today as well, I'm thinking of the possibility of responding by framing my immediate follow-up touch-back as an "affectionate goodbye" in response to their "quick exit".

If you read the messages, Bel's own solution was very creative and, looking from the outside, it seems like it was largely self-generated.

It would have been easy for Bel to claim credit and give little back to Maverick.

BUT

Bel instead looked for a way to give a lot of credit to Maverick.
He looked for ways to bridge from Maverick's initial post, to his own final solution, dropping credits along the way.

This is the opposite of "power hoarding".
And it's the best way to maximize input (and value) in any information-based exchanges where getting information, ideas, and inputs is most crucial.

For completeness of information, the effectiveness of this approach is contextual.
It may not be the best approach in competitive environments where you may want to get at least your fair share of credit if not more in order to gain more status and/or advance -ie.: at work, with colleagues-.

But, it's perfect with:

• Mentors
• Online forums
• Leaders, especially leaders of high-value groups where you want people to contribute and share for increasing everyone's pie