Former Community – We Moved

🆕 Coached community here, for posts & feedback public community here.

ForumPublic Forum: Business / Work / CareerThis Is the Truth About Networkin …

Please or Register to create posts and topics.

This Is the Truth About Networking (You'll Waste Time)

#1 · December 22, 2023, 5:33 am

Quote from Ali Scarlett on December 22, 2023, 5:33 am
This Is the Truth About Networking (You'll Waste Time)
I’ve had hundreds of networking meetings, calls, and conversations. I’ve noticed one recurring pattern...
Most of the people networking are beginners in power dynamics and clueless about how to network intentionally.
And that means that, as brutal and harsh as it may sound, you’ll waste a lot of time meeting and talking with people who just aren’t worth the effort.
The Issue with Networking
The problem with networking is that no matter how good you get at it, it will always be a two-man game.
And for you to reap the most benefits from your networking efforts, you need to be networking with other people who also know how to network.
Put another way, it takes two hands to make a handshake.
But, if one hand doesn’t know what to do, well, you’ll either end up standing there while they figure it out or have to move on to another hand that does. (Unless you want to "coach" them on what to do right then and there, but that’s not always very practical or prudent time-wise which we’ll also discuss a bit later.)
Unfortunately, in networking, there are a lot of people who don’t know what to do.
And that can ruin the interaction for both parties.
Most People Don’t Know How to Network
Most people don’t bother to learn networking.
Or, they learn it but don’t apply what they learn. And as a result, they end up clueless about what to do, what to say, and how to let you know they’d be a good connection.
This creates two main problems:
You have to take the lead a lot of the time: which can be an opportunity since it makes you look like a higher-status, well-networked individual. But, it creates an issue if they don’t know how to follow your lead (such as by reciprocating your approach of seeking ways to give value first—which is where you’ll run into a lot of potential takers).
You end up with “disengaged” counterparts and interactions: see below.
When you’re dealing with someone who doesn’t know how to network, they may be too busy making one of the following mistakes (some of which have been referenced from Never Eat Alone) that disengage you from being able to connect with them (and vice-versa):
The Wallflower: the limp handshake and unassuming demeanor, you may find them in the far corner of the room scrolling on their phone. This is the person who looks like they only plan on watching from afar and may never get involved (and sometimes they never do).
PRO Tip: You also have to keep an eye out for the wallflowers in the room, they may be worth knowing, just shy or prone to anxiety (or they may have another valid reason).
The Ankle Hugger: the total codependent who thinks that the first person they meet is going to be their BFF for the rest of the evening. Oftentimes, it’s really just a fear of approaching and meeting new people alone.
The Celebrity Hound: this is the person who only wants to meet and speak to the most important person in the room…and no one else. They only came here for one person and they may see talking to anyone else as a waste of time/energy. (Oftentimes, the most important person at the event is either busy or on guard for people like this though, so celebrity hounds don’t usually make it very far anyway.)
The Smarmy Eye-Darter: this is the person who has trouble maintaining eye contact with you throughout your conversation because they’re consistently looking around the room for someone more important to talk to.
The Card Dispenser/Ammasser: this is the person who measures networking success by business cards given and collected. And while they may think they’re creating a robust web of contacts, they’re really just building a glorified phone book while giving out paper destined for the recycling bin. (You can expect conversations with these types to be brief given that while you’re both talking, they’re always thinking about how many cards they brought along with them that they “have” to give out.)
The Attention Seeker: in her book, Networking for People Who Hate Networking, author Devora Zack shares a story about someone who, at each networking event, would stand near the middle of a crowd and dump a bunch of her business cards on the ground around her “by accident.” And as people rush to help her gather the cards, unable to help but look at what’s written on them, reactions and conversations would spark surrounding her profession. It’s a clever idea, but one that can easily have negative consequences if overdone (and especially if/when people begin to catch on).
The Elevator Presenter: this is the person who locks you into a long, unrequested elevator pitch about their product that begins to feel like the length of a sales presentation. The boldest networkers will even share their screen and pull up a PowerPoint if they're meeting you online.
The Networking Frog: they're described as "frogs" because you always feel slimy after dealing with them. This person is always “on the hunt” for new prospects. They will ask you for referrals, introductions, and favors too often, yet rarely reciprocate. This person "doesn’t (seem to) have the time" to sit down and learn about your business and needs. (Sometimes this person will also talk excessively about themself and their business, but rarely ask you any questions. And if they do ask, they don't really listen to your answers.) They take forever to return your phone calls and e-mails, rarely go out of their way to help you, and seem inconvenienced when complying with your requests.
Most Networking Mistakes Can’t Go Ignored
Some networking experts have argued that these mistakes should be overlooked (regardless of how harmful they may be to your interaction with the individual) and that you should go for the connection anyway because anybody could be a good contact to have in your network since you never know who they might know. (They often quote the six degrees of separation studies here).
Also, if nothing else, they may at least be able to provide a referral or two for you.
However, the first issue with that idea is that they may not agree with (or even know about) it.
So, if you’re not careful, you’ll end up expending more effort to connect with someone who’s less interested in establishing a connection with you because they’re thinking to themself what you’ve been thinking yourself from the very beginning (when they made the mistake), “What’s the point here, we’re clearly not a fit for each other.”
The second problem is that the last thing you want to do is invest a lot of time, energy, and value into someone who wouldn’t be willing to give anything back—not even a referral.
Assessing Poor Networkers Can Take Longer
So, how can you find out early on if someone would be willing to give back?
With the social exchange, of course.
Unfortunately, most people don’t understand the social exchange and how to use it to present themselves as value-givers. (And, let’s be honest, most people don’t take the time out of their day to attend networking events so they can give to random strangers. Most networkers are almost always looking to take because they’re human beings who want to justify the time they spent attending the event as not having been a waste.)
So, they either end up coming across as selfish takers (and it’s not your job to give them the benefit of the doubt anyway and find out the hard way if they were a taker or not) or neutral non-givers (which is equally unhelpful).
That results in more work for you to identify who the people are who might be enlightened collaborators that maybe just don’t know how to show it yet.
Now, that can be great experience and learning opportunity, but it can also be a lot of wasted time because it wouldn’t take nearly as long to assess people if they were able to clearly articulate that they’re non-takers (such as with expressions of gratitude and WIIFT framing).
The Solution to the Issue
Finally, we get into the solutions.
Become a Competent Networker Anyway
One competent networker who can lead the interaction to a productive and fruitful win-win is still better than none.
And having those networking skills already will certainly come in handy for the future.
Push Through the Weeds
If you can stick with it long and consistently enough, more often than not, you’ll eventually find those “connectors” who are worth the effort.
And your only issue at that point will be making sure you bring enough value and power-awareness to the table to make that connection happen :).
Go for Events with Entry Barriers
Generally speaking, networking events and groups where anybody is allowed in (with no moderation or vetting) are bound to lead to some wasted time.
An entry barrier, whether financial or otherwise, ensures the quality of the attendees will be higher.
Another alternative is to simply go for events that are recommended by close members of your network whom you trust.
The way I did it when I first started out and didn’t have a network to ask was:
Attending every event I could
Looking for and meeting people who network often (for example, I see them repeatedly, perhaps even at different events) and seem to be good at it
Asking them for their opinion on other good events to attend
Then, when I attended those events, I’d sometimes meet good people to add to my network who also had recommendations of their own.
Go for Social Groups Over Business Groups
When people join networking groups, they go into “networking mode” and focus more on achieving their goal for joining which creates a lot of the aforementioned issues since they overthink what they’re supposed to do under those circumstances and do so with a self-interested headspace.
If you go for social groups, however, such as playing a team sport, you can make friends and connections where people feel more natural and comfortable connecting with you because they don’t consider it “networking.” Rather, they simply think of it as making a friend.
And a friendship-oriented approach to making connections is often better anyway. (Not only is business itself more cold and transactional, but fewer people know how to network the “business way” well.)
This post is an experimental article sharing some of my current thoughts and feelings on networking after hundreds of networking meetings, testing multiple networking groups and events (including speed networking), and connecting with many different kinds of people.
If you found it insightful at all, please let me know, happy to read any thoughts as I mull it over more.

This Is the Truth About Networking (You'll Waste Time)

I’ve had hundreds of networking meetings, calls, and conversations. I’ve noticed one recurring pattern...

Most of the people networking are beginners in power dynamics and clueless about how to network intentionally.

And that means that, as brutal and harsh as it may sound, you’ll waste a lot of time meeting and talking with people who just aren’t worth the effort.

The Issue with Networking

The problem with networking is that no matter how good you get at it, it will always be a two-man game.

And for you to reap the most benefits from your networking efforts, you need to be networking with other people who also know how to network.

Put another way, it takes two hands to make a handshake.

But, if one hand doesn’t know what to do, well, you’ll either end up standing there while they figure it out or have to move on to another hand that does. (Unless you want to "coach" them on what to do right then and there, but that’s not always very practical or prudent time-wise which we’ll also discuss a bit later.)

Unfortunately, in networking, there are a lot of people who don’t know what to do.

And that can ruin the interaction for both parties.

Most People Don’t Know How to Network

Most people don’t bother to learn networking.

Or, they learn it but don’t apply what they learn. And as a result, they end up clueless about what to do, what to say, and how to let you know they’d be a good connection.

This creates two main problems:

You have to take the lead a lot of the time: which can be an opportunity since it makes you look like a higher-status, well-networked individual. But, it creates an issue if they don’t know how to follow your lead (such as by reciprocating your approach of seeking ways to give value first—which is where you’ll run into a lot of potential takers).
You end up with “disengaged” counterparts and interactions: see below.

When you’re dealing with someone who doesn’t know how to network, they may be too busy making one of the following mistakes (some of which have been referenced from Never Eat Alone) that disengage you from being able to connect with them (and vice-versa):

The Wallflower: the limp handshake and unassuming demeanor, you may find them in the far corner of the room scrolling on their phone. This is the person who looks like they only plan on watching from afar and may never get involved (and sometimes they never do).
- PRO Tip: You also have to keep an eye out for the wallflowers in the room, they may be worth knowing, just shy or prone to anxiety (or they may have another valid reason).
The Ankle Hugger: the total codependent who thinks that the first person they meet is going to be their BFF for the rest of the evening. Oftentimes, it’s really just a fear of approaching and meeting new people alone.
The Celebrity Hound: this is the person who only wants to meet and speak to the most important person in the room…and no one else. They only came here for one person and they may see talking to anyone else as a waste of time/energy. (Oftentimes, the most important person at the event is either busy or on guard for people like this though, so celebrity hounds don’t usually make it very far anyway.)
The Smarmy Eye-Darter: this is the person who has trouble maintaining eye contact with you throughout your conversation because they’re consistently looking around the room for someone more important to talk to.
The Card Dispenser/Ammasser: this is the person who measures networking success by business cards given and collected. And while they may think they’re creating a robust web of contacts, they’re really just building a glorified phone book while giving out paper destined for the recycling bin. (You can expect conversations with these types to be brief given that while you’re both talking, they’re always thinking about how many cards they brought along with them that they “have” to give out.)
The Attention Seeker: in her book, Networking for People Who Hate Networking, author Devora Zack shares a story about someone who, at each networking event, would stand near the middle of a crowd and dump a bunch of her business cards on the ground around her “by accident.” And as people rush to help her gather the cards, unable to help but look at what’s written on them, reactions and conversations would spark surrounding her profession. It’s a clever idea, but one that can easily have negative consequences if overdone (and especially if/when people begin to catch on).
The Elevator Presenter: this is the person who locks you into a long, unrequested elevator pitch about their product that begins to feel like the length of a sales presentation. The boldest networkers will even share their screen and pull up a PowerPoint if they're meeting you online.
The Networking Frog: they're described as "frogs" because you always feel slimy after dealing with them. This person is always “on the hunt” for new prospects. They will ask you for referrals, introductions, and favors too often, yet rarely reciprocate. This person "doesn’t (seem to) have the time" to sit down and learn about your business and needs. (Sometimes this person will also talk excessively about themself and their business, but rarely ask you any questions. And if they do ask, they don't really listen to your answers.) They take forever to return your phone calls and e-mails, rarely go out of their way to help you, and seem inconvenienced when complying with your requests.

Most Networking Mistakes Can’t Go Ignored

Some networking experts have argued that these mistakes should be overlooked (regardless of how harmful they may be to your interaction with the individual) and that you should go for the connection anyway because anybody could be a good contact to have in your network since you never know who they might know. (They often quote the six degrees of separation studies here).

Also, if nothing else, they may at least be able to provide a referral or two for you.

However, the first issue with that idea is that they may not agree with (or even know about) it.

So, if you’re not careful, you’ll end up expending more effort to connect with someone who’s less interested in establishing a connection with you because they’re thinking to themself what you’ve been thinking yourself from the very beginning (when they made the mistake), “What’s the point here, we’re clearly not a fit for each other.”

The second problem is that the last thing you want to do is invest a lot of time, energy, and value into someone who wouldn’t be willing to give anything back—not even a referral.

Assessing Poor Networkers Can Take Longer

So, how can you find out early on if someone would be willing to give back?

With the social exchange, of course.

Unfortunately, most people don’t understand the social exchange and how to use it to present themselves as value-givers. (And, let’s be honest, most people don’t take the time out of their day to attend networking events so they can give to random strangers. Most networkers are almost always looking to take because they’re human beings who want to justify the time they spent attending the event as not having been a waste.)

So, they either end up coming across as selfish takers (and it’s not your job to give them the benefit of the doubt anyway and find out the hard way if they were a taker or not) or neutral non-givers (which is equally unhelpful).

That results in more work for you to identify who the people are who might be enlightened collaborators that maybe just don’t know how to show it yet.

Now, that can be great experience and learning opportunity, but it can also be a lot of wasted time because it wouldn’t take nearly as long to assess people if they were able to clearly articulate that they’re non-takers (such as with expressions of gratitude and WIIFT framing).

The Solution to the Issue

Finally, we get into the solutions.

Become a Competent Networker Anyway

One competent networker who can lead the interaction to a productive and fruitful win-win is still better than none.

And having those networking skills already will certainly come in handy for the future.

Push Through the Weeds

If you can stick with it long and consistently enough, more often than not, you’ll eventually find those “connectors” who are worth the effort.

And your only issue at that point will be making sure you bring enough value and power-awareness to the table to make that connection happen :).

Go for Events with Entry Barriers

Generally speaking, networking events and groups where anybody is allowed in (with no moderation or vetting) are bound to lead to some wasted time.

An entry barrier, whether financial or otherwise, ensures the quality of the attendees will be higher.

Another alternative is to simply go for events that are recommended by close members of your network whom you trust.

The way I did it when I first started out and didn’t have a network to ask was:

Attending every event I could
Looking for and meeting people who network often (for example, I see them repeatedly, perhaps even at different events) and seem to be good at it
Asking them for their opinion on other good events to attend

Then, when I attended those events, I’d sometimes meet good people to add to my network who also had recommendations of their own.

Go for Social Groups Over Business Groups

When people join networking groups, they go into “networking mode” and focus more on achieving their goal for joining which creates a lot of the aforementioned issues since they overthink what they’re supposed to do under those circumstances and do so with a self-interested headspace.

If you go for social groups, however, such as playing a team sport, you can make friends and connections where people feel more natural and comfortable connecting with you because they don’t consider it “networking.” Rather, they simply think of it as making a friend.

And a friendship-oriented approach to making connections is often better anyway. (Not only is business itself more cold and transactional, but fewer people know how to network the “business way” well.)

This post is an experimental article sharing some of my current thoughts and feelings on networking after hundreds of networking meetings, testing multiple networking groups and events (including speed networking), and connecting with many different kinds of people.

If you found it insightful at all, please let me know, happy to read any thoughts as I mull it over more.

Lucio Buffalmano, Kavalier and 2 other users have reacted to this post.

#2 · December 22, 2023, 9:10 am

Thanks Ali that is great thinking and makes a lot of sense.

I personally wouldn't bother with a meeting that was just for networking

If you don't mind sharing I am curious on your thoughts on professional Meetup groups like say a Microsoft user group or an insurance industry meet up.

Do they fall into the business or social category? Or something else?

#3 · December 22, 2023, 10:41 am

My main criticism with networking events is that I think the people who go there are not successful nor high achievers.

Those people are too busy to go to a networking event.

Even among their own organization they’re too busy to go to networking events.

So it’s for people beginning in their craft which is fine. Like startups, young entrepreneurs etc. But that means that the people there will be this crowd.

No Jeff Bezos, etc. will be there on a Friday night.

That being said, I’m sure there is the pearl in the rough and also interesting people just to meet them and have a good time. The issue is a matter of odds or ROI.

So I think the surest path to success is skill acquisition, power skills and social skills. Then the networking « happens by itself » since you’re recognized as high value by your closest circle who will recommend you to their circle and give you contacts. That’s my experience.

For me it’s the same as dating. Yes you can approach 100s of women in the street (I did). Yes you can learn magic tricks and game to seduce women. But I think the best ROI is focusing on become a better mate and then women want to be with you.

So networking events in business is a bit like marketing or game in dating.

The big fishes don’t go to networking events because people come to them. I think it’s better to become a big fish. I don’t think there is any shortcut in that regard.

One can meet high quality people that’s for sure. It’s the value sought that I’m not 100% sure.

The fact that they don’t understand the law of social exchange is a proof that they’re not high value. So they have little value to offer and this is why they go to these events: to get value.

My 2 cents.

Ali Scarlett and Gguwad have reacted to this post.

#4 · December 22, 2023, 4:51 pm

Quote from Ali Scarlett on December 22, 2023, 4:51 pm
Quote from Transitioned on December 22, 2023, 9:10 am
(...)
If you don't mind sharing I am curious on your thoughts on professional Meetup groups like say a Microsoft user group or an insurance industry meet up.
Do they fall into the business or social category? Or something else?
Yeah, if it's a professional Meetup group, then it automatically falls into the business category by definition.
These groups have more of a business/professional focus and it's up to you to include more personal topics in your conversations with the members.
That's not to say these groups are a waste though, they can be good.
The main way in which I'd recommend anyone to use them though is to seek real friendships with the group members that go beyond the scope of the groups. (Don't be just another guy they talk about Microsoft or insurance with.)
That way, you:
Expand the scope in which you can give value: now you can offer help with their personal challenges as well (not just professional ones) since they're a more personal contact/friend
Expand the variety of value you can receive back: chances are higher you'll receive value back in the form of gifts rather than just advice, links to helpful articles and videos, and other forms of value-giving that are more "professional norms." (Plus, they'll be more likely to make introductions for and recommend opportunities to someone they feel closer to.)
Quote from John Freeman on December 22, 2023, 10:41 am
My main criticism with networking events is that I think the people who go there are not successful nor high achievers.
Those people are too busy to go to a networking event.
(...)
So it’s for people beginning in their craft which is fine. Like startups, young entrepreneurs etc. But that means that the people there will be this crowd.
No Jeff Bezos, etc. will be there on a Friday night.
(...)
The big fishes don’t go to networking events because people come to them. I think it’s better to become a big fish. I don’t think there is any shortcut in that regard.
Thanks for sharing your position on it, John!
It may come as a surprise, but I actually agree with you. It's a part of the case against networking that I'm building and I talk about it in the course here (a brief snippet):
Avoid Traditional Networking Events
There’s a specific type of networking event I’m referring to here.
It’s the kind where anyone and everyone is invited (regardless of profession) and people primarily only attend to meet other people for their own self-interested purposes and then leave.
Those traditional business mixers and luncheons that often lead to a lot of poor conversations (and wasted time):
Entrepreneurs meeting job seekers rather than other entrepreneurs they could potentially collaborate with
Job seekers meeting salesmen rather than business owners
These overrated traditional-style networking events put an emphasis on the quantity of time you spend, banking on the idea that the longer the event is and the more people attend the more “connections” you’ll automatically make the longer you stay.
But, what really matters is the quality of time spent. And that means prioritizing the types of events that encourage productive connection-building activities like bonding.
Derek Coburn, author of Networking Is Not Working, put it best:
Coburn: “Networking events. The night clubs of business development…No matter how you slice it, everyone in the room is focused on his or her own personal agenda…of course, there will also be professionals at these events who, like you, have a long-term view and are looking to establish meaningful connections with other attendees. But, they’re becoming fewer and further between. Instead, you’re getting people like ‘me, me, me’ or folks who are looking for a job…I get frustrated whenever I go to an event and end up meeting people whose only objective is securing my email so they can pass along their resume. This approach never works. If I am looking to hire a new employee, I know exactly what I need and I go out to find it. I do not leave it up to chance at large networking events.”
Coburn: “In many ways…traditional networking is a lot like dating. It’s a part of life you get tired of the older you get, especially as it gets harder to find people who are looking for the same things you are…networking events are like night clubs because most people there are just looking for a professional one night stand…To expand on the dating analogy, books about finding your ideal partner or soulmate generally don’t advise you go to night clubs every night. If you’re looking to meet someone nice who might be suitable for a committed relationship, why would you waste your time in a crowded place that is so loud you can’t even hear yourself think? Plus, it’s not like you’re going to meet many people who are there for the same reasons you are. It’s common sense.”
And Brian Hilliard in his book Networking Like a Pro goes deeper into the conflict of interest aspect of traditional networking events:
Hilliard: “Ivan [Misner] was at a large networking event with more than 900 people recently. When he went up to do his presentation, he began by asking the audience, ‘How many of you came here today hoping to do a little business, maybe make a sale?’ The overwhelming majority of people in the audience raised their hands. He then asked, ‘How many of you here today are hoping to buy something?’ No one raised a hand. Not one single person.”
Many people go to these traditional networking events hoping to sell you something with no intention of buying anything from you.
Now, also consider this:
If you were already a millionaire with passive incoming connections and a business to focus on running, would you be at a networking event?
Probably not because you’d have already surpassed that phase.
Similarly, many of the people you’ll meet at these traditional networking events are often people who are still seeking help, guidance, and growth for their businesses and may have less value to give.
The high-status and high-value people you really want to meet are busy making better use of their time.
So, instead, consider nontraditional networking events, social groups, and networking groups where the culture is built on giving to one another. (For example, a networking workshop that meets once a week where you only provide leads for each other. You’re working for the group and the group is working for you.)
You're right, big fish don't go to traditional networking events.
But, they do still go to nontraditional networking events and social groups.
And you may find some in certain networking groups with larger entry barriers. (For example, groups like Genius Network and Young Entrepreneur Council require you to be making $1m in annual revenue already before applying to join.)
Edit:
Changed wording.

Quote from Transitioned on December 22, 2023, 9:10 am
(...)
If you don't mind sharing I am curious on your thoughts on professional Meetup groups like say a Microsoft user group or an insurance industry meet up.
Do they fall into the business or social category? Or something else?

Yeah, if it's a professional Meetup group, then it automatically falls into the business category by definition.

These groups have more of a business/professional focus and it's up to you to include more personal topics in your conversations with the members.

That's not to say these groups are a waste though, they can be good.

The main way in which I'd recommend anyone to use them though is to seek real friendships with the group members that go beyond the scope of the groups. (Don't be just another guy they talk about Microsoft or insurance with.)

That way, you:

Expand the scope in which you can give value: now you can offer help with their personal challenges as well (not just professional ones) since they're a more personal contact/friend
Expand the variety of value you can receive back: chances are higher you'll receive value back in the form of gifts rather than just advice, links to helpful articles and videos, and other forms of value-giving that are more "professional norms." (Plus, they'll be more likely to make introductions for and recommend opportunities to someone they feel closer to.)

Quote from John Freeman on December 22, 2023, 10:41 am
My main criticism with networking events is that I think the people who go there are not successful nor high achievers.
Those people are too busy to go to a networking event.
(...)
So it’s for people beginning in their craft which is fine. Like startups, young entrepreneurs etc. But that means that the people there will be this crowd.
No Jeff Bezos, etc. will be there on a Friday night.
(...)
The big fishes don’t go to networking events because people come to them. I think it’s better to become a big fish. I don’t think there is any shortcut in that regard.

Thanks for sharing your position on it, John!

It may come as a surprise, but I actually agree with you. It's a part of the case against networking that I'm building and I talk about it in the course here (a brief snippet):

Avoid Traditional Networking Events
There’s a specific type of networking event I’m referring to here.
It’s the kind where anyone and everyone is invited (regardless of profession) and people primarily only attend to meet other people for their own self-interested purposes and then leave.
Those traditional business mixers and luncheons that often lead to a lot of poor conversations (and wasted time):
Entrepreneurs meeting job seekers rather than other entrepreneurs they could potentially collaborate with
Job seekers meeting salesmen rather than business owners
These overrated traditional-style networking events put an emphasis on the quantity of time you spend, banking on the idea that the longer the event is and the more people attend the more “connections” you’ll automatically make the longer you stay.
But, what really matters is the quality of time spent. And that means prioritizing the types of events that encourage productive connection-building activities like bonding.
Derek Coburn, author of Networking Is Not Working, put it best:
Coburn: “Networking events. The night clubs of business development…No matter how you slice it, everyone in the room is focused on his or her own personal agenda…of course, there will also be professionals at these events who, like you, have a long-term view and are looking to establish meaningful connections with other attendees. But, they’re becoming fewer and further between. Instead, you’re getting people like ‘me, me, me’ or folks who are looking for a job…I get frustrated whenever I go to an event and end up meeting people whose only objective is securing my email so they can pass along their resume. This approach never works. If I am looking to hire a new employee, I know exactly what I need and I go out to find it. I do not leave it up to chance at large networking events.”
Coburn: “In many ways…traditional networking is a lot like dating. It’s a part of life you get tired of the older you get, especially as it gets harder to find people who are looking for the same things you are…networking events are like night clubs because most people there are just looking for a professional one night stand…To expand on the dating analogy, books about finding your ideal partner or soulmate generally don’t advise you go to night clubs every night. If you’re looking to meet someone nice who might be suitable for a committed relationship, why would you waste your time in a crowded place that is so loud you can’t even hear yourself think? Plus, it’s not like you’re going to meet many people who are there for the same reasons you are. It’s common sense.”
And Brian Hilliard in his book Networking Like a Pro goes deeper into the conflict of interest aspect of traditional networking events:
Hilliard: “Ivan [Misner] was at a large networking event with more than 900 people recently. When he went up to do his presentation, he began by asking the audience, ‘How many of you came here today hoping to do a little business, maybe make a sale?’ The overwhelming majority of people in the audience raised their hands. He then asked, ‘How many of you here today are hoping to buy something?’ No one raised a hand. Not one single person.”
Many people go to these traditional networking events hoping to sell you something with no intention of buying anything from you.
Now, also consider this:
If you were already a millionaire with passive incoming connections and a business to focus on running, would you be at a networking event?
Probably not because you’d have already surpassed that phase.
Similarly, many of the people you’ll meet at these traditional networking events are often people who are still seeking help, guidance, and growth for their businesses and may have less value to give.
The high-status and high-value people you really want to meet are busy making better use of their time.
So, instead, consider nontraditional networking events, social groups, and networking groups where the culture is built on giving to one another. (For example, a networking workshop that meets once a week where you only provide leads for each other. You’re working for the group and the group is working for you.)

You're right, big fish don't go to traditional networking events.

But, they do still go to nontraditional networking events and social groups.

And you may find some in certain networking groups with larger entry barriers. (For example, groups like Genius Network and Young Entrepreneur Council require you to be making $1m in annual revenue already before applying to join.)

Edit:

Changed wording.

John Freeman and Kavalier have reacted to this post.

#5 · December 22, 2023, 9:14 pm

Haha I have never gone to networking events because I've always been too busy working and I've always had FOMO about it. Turns out it's the same for everyone.

John Freeman has reacted to this post.

#6 · December 24, 2023, 12:44 pm

Quote from John Freeman on December 24, 2023, 12:44 pm
Thanks for sharing your position on it, John!
Thank you for your interesting thread!
It may come as a surprise, but I actually agree with you. It's a part of the case against networking that I'm building and I talk about it in the course here (a brief snippet):
I'm not surprised in the sense that it's never sure what the other person is going to respond anyway. To me we are truth seekers/explorers. So it's about finding the truth together, not about being right.
I did not say networking is bad. I think the opposite. I think it's great what you're doing and it shows an intention to be objective, therefore closer to the truth.
My point is that I think networking is great and necessary. That's why it's so popular. What I think is that just like with dating, it's more organic to meet through common acquaintances, to grow one's network organically through time.
My current GF I met her on Tinder. So I think there are shortcuts. That is to jump to another tribe that we're not originally part of. My point is that just like cold approach the ROI and the odds could be low in networking events (same approach as cold approach, no pun).
So networking is often sold as a "get rich quick" scheme. Just like cold approach or dating apps. And it can be. However, I think these approaches: cold approaches, networking events could either be considered the cake or the icing on the cake. So I think it's more a question of strategy/context. Like the age old debate on cold approach vs social circle. One is high risk high reward short term: you can get a girl now and then but maybe you'll have to approach 30 women. The other is low risk high reward long term: you can get a girl but it takes time and one depends on one's social circle quality.
So I don't think it's about whether networking events are good or bad. It's more about when, where and for who the way I see it.
Like if I'm travelling, going the social circle route makes no sense. Cold approaching in one's village of 500 people makes no sense either. So as usual, context, situation person, skills, goals matter.
For me, for instance networking events make zero sense. Why would I go there? But conferences make 100% sense. I get to learn things, show myself as a committed professional and meet (high value) people in my field.
So in attempt to bring value and following the original intention (I assume), I think it would be cool to have a comparison (array, or like Lucio's recent article on 48 laws vs TPM) with:
Networking events: AKA events for the sole purpose of meeting people
Conferences
Charities
Meetup groups
Etc.
These are the ones I imagine. And talk about when and who. For instance: networking events. Who: Young entrepreneurs/startups, if you're looking for specific novel skills difficult to acquire on the market (SEO specialist, etc.) or investors or other companies to trade experience with or to get specific knowledge (how to do X: taxes, get investors, etc.). When: when your project is mature enough that you can talk about it, etc. On top of my mind.
Cheers.

Thanks for sharing your position on it, John!

Thank you for your interesting thread!

It may come as a surprise, but I actually agree with you. It's a part of the case against networking that I'm building and I talk about it in the course here (a brief snippet):

I'm not surprised in the sense that it's never sure what the other person is going to respond anyway. To me we are truth seekers/explorers. So it's about finding the truth together, not about being right.

I did not say networking is bad. I think the opposite. I think it's great what you're doing and it shows an intention to be objective, therefore closer to the truth.

My point is that I think networking is great and necessary. That's why it's so popular. What I think is that just like with dating, it's more organic to meet through common acquaintances, to grow one's network organically through time.

My current GF I met her on Tinder. So I think there are shortcuts. That is to jump to another tribe that we're not originally part of. My point is that just like cold approach the ROI and the odds could be low in networking events (same approach as cold approach, no pun).

So networking is often sold as a "get rich quick" scheme. Just like cold approach or dating apps. And it can be. However, I think these approaches: cold approaches, networking events could either be considered the cake or the icing on the cake. So I think it's more a question of strategy/context. Like the age old debate on cold approach vs social circle. One is high risk high reward short term: you can get a girl now and then but maybe you'll have to approach 30 women. The other is low risk high reward long term: you can get a girl but it takes time and one depends on one's social circle quality.

So I don't think it's about whether networking events are good or bad. It's more about when, where and for who the way I see it.

Like if I'm travelling, going the social circle route makes no sense. Cold approaching in one's village of 500 people makes no sense either. So as usual, context, situation person, skills, goals matter.

For me, for instance networking events make zero sense. Why would I go there? But conferences make 100% sense. I get to learn things, show myself as a committed professional and meet (high value) people in my field.

So in attempt to bring value and following the original intention (I assume), I think it would be cool to have a comparison (array, or like Lucio's recent article on 48 laws vs TPM) with:

Networking events: AKA events for the sole purpose of meeting people
Conferences
Charities
Meetup groups
Etc.

These are the ones I imagine. And talk about when and who. For instance: networking events. Who: Young entrepreneurs/startups, if you're looking for specific novel skills difficult to acquire on the market (SEO specialist, etc.) or investors or other companies to trade experience with or to get specific knowledge (how to do X: taxes, get investors, etc.). When: when your project is mature enough that you can talk about it, etc. On top of my mind.

Cheers.

Ali Scarlett and Kavalier have reacted to this post.

#7 · January 3, 2024, 6:46 pm

An additional note:

A big contribution to the problem is also how people view networking.

Many authors talk about how people avoid networking because they:

Don't want to feel sleazy doing it
Don't want to be around sleazy people who are doing it
Don't see it as a priority

The first two can be resolved by being one of the few people in the room who's actually following the social exchange and seeking to give.

With good frame control and power awareness, you can self-frame as the non-sleazy attendee in the crowd and feel good adding value to the lives of others.

But, that last point is a bigger issue because it contributes to a host of other problems (many of which we touched on above).

When people don't see networking as a priority they:

Don't bother to learn how to get better at it
Don't bother to practice getting better at it

And that's where they're more prone to wasting their own time and yours.

Author Joe Apfelbaum describes it well in High Energy Networking where he references "The Eisenhower Matrix" (a concept mentioned by Stephen R. Covey in The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People):

Most people see networking as something that may be important to their long-term success, but not immediately urgent and, therefore, neglect doing it until they need something (a favor, job, new clients, etc.).

That's when they'll go into the event looking to take what they need as fast as possible and then leave.

So, whenever possible, avoid networking events where people are looking for one-off interactions or short-term gains.

In other words, stay away from most speed networking events.

People who view networking as a long game are those most likely to be better at it, have more value to bring, and have higher potential to be a good pick for a win-win relationship.

Lucio Buffalmano, John Freeman and Kavalier have reacted to this post.

#8 · January 3, 2024, 7:03 pm

Quote from John Freeman on January 3, 2024, 7:03 pm
Yeah, I agree, it's a long term thing and that's why it gets a bad rap when sold as a shortcut (will sell more).
It's not really a shortcut, it's an essential skill to grow.
Your post helps me to understand why I feel professional events in one's profession have a better ROI. Short-term vs long term.
I also understand now that the foundation of networking is mastering the law of social exchanges and then adding on top the techniques that you introduced/talked about on the forum: exchanging contacts, etc. Also selecting where to meet people.
So I feel that you're going through the same realisation/deconstruction as I imagine Lucio underwent in self-development: what is real? what is useful? what is bullshit?
And after having found that, to restructure it.
I'm aware you already have a course going on. My thought is that looking at what's not working in the networking literature is helping you to make a better course that is bringing higher value than most (as you already noticed of course).
My point is that I think that looking at the negatives/lacks/flaws of the current networking approach can help you build a course that is the equivalent of PU for networking. I'm quite sure it's your ambition and I feel this thread and thought process is one more step towards making a World-class course on networking.
Of course, I mean all of the above (writing this just in case) and salute your objectivity as a fellow aspiring objective/rational thinker (it's a never ending journey).
Off-topic (?)
From an outside perspective if that's helpful: witnessing you genuinely look at the negative of networking increased my respect for you and your credibility as an expert-in-the making in networking (as I said I think it's always better to see us like that than an expert: risk of fixed mindset. We can use "expert" to simplify and introduce ourselves to others but I think it's better not to think to ourselves that we are. That's my view on the "expert" label.). It also reinforces the credibility in the networking topic itself in my eyes that the literature which went sideways lost. This is also a feed-back on the "stealing the corner office" when they talk about objectivity building credibility. I can witness it today from an outsider perspective.
/Off topic

Yeah, I agree, it's a long term thing and that's why it gets a bad rap when sold as a shortcut (will sell more).

It's not really a shortcut, it's an essential skill to grow.

Your post helps me to understand why I feel professional events in one's profession have a better ROI. Short-term vs long term.

I also understand now that the foundation of networking is mastering the law of social exchanges and then adding on top the techniques that you introduced/talked about on the forum: exchanging contacts, etc. Also selecting where to meet people.

So I feel that you're going through the same realisation/deconstruction as I imagine Lucio underwent in self-development: what is real? what is useful? what is bullshit?

And after having found that, to restructure it.

I'm aware you already have a course going on. My thought is that looking at what's not working in the networking literature is helping you to make a better course that is bringing higher value than most (as you already noticed of course).

My point is that I think that looking at the negatives/lacks/flaws of the current networking approach can help you build a course that is the equivalent of PU for networking. I'm quite sure it's your ambition and I feel this thread and thought process is one more step towards making a World-class course on networking.

Of course, I mean all of the above (writing this just in case) and salute your objectivity as a fellow aspiring objective/rational thinker (it's a never ending journey).

Off-topic (?)

From an outside perspective if that's helpful: witnessing you genuinely look at the negative of networking increased my respect for you and your credibility as an expert-in-the making in networking (as I said I think it's always better to see us like that than an expert: risk of fixed mindset. We can use "expert" to simplify and introduce ourselves to others but I think it's better not to think to ourselves that we are. That's my view on the "expert" label.). It also reinforces the credibility in the networking topic itself in my eyes that the literature which went sideways lost. This is also a feed-back on the "stealing the corner office" when they talk about objectivity building credibility. I can witness it today from an outsider perspective.

/Off topic

Ali Scarlett has reacted to this post.

#9 · January 3, 2024, 7:55 pm

Off-topic

So from my perspective, I think it is great to read everything on the topic of networking to come up with novel ideas that people who haven't read the same things cannot make. I mean the connections between ideas. So I think you're right on the money to read anything and everything on the topic. It's a long term game and it compounds (again TPM is a good example).

With this thread I now understand that networking is your passion even if I got a hint of that before. That is what I call a profession. Dedication to a craft. So hats off.

/Off-topic

Ali Scarlett has reacted to this post.

#10 · January 4, 2024, 11:35 am

OFF-TOPIC

Yeah, actually, you hit the nail on the head there as far as my goal, John.

Since I see PU as the best course in the world on power dynamics and social skills, as a PU student with admiration and respect for Lucio, I want to create nothing less than the best course in the world on networking.

Also, a small feedback for you man, I was hesitant to like your posts because of a couple of power moves I saw. I was glad to read that my case against networking had increased your respect for me and raised my credibility with you. However, when you said, "I think you're right on the money to read anything and everything on the topic," it felt like you had begun speaking from a teacher role, judging what course of action would be right or wrong for me. Another way of phrasing it could've been, "I like (and agree with) your approach of reading anything and everything on the topic."

With that said, I'm still prone to overanalyzing, so feel free to disagree on this one. (And I kept this out of the "feedback & clarifications" thread to avoid magnifying/expanding on it.)

OFF-TOPIC

John Freeman and Kavalier have reacted to this post.