Please or Register to create posts and topics.

What's in it for them guys, WIIFT, never forget it!

Just as the term "pick your brain" communicates a WIIFT fail, I'm thinking about changing "bounce ideas off of" to "bounce ideas with".

Bounce ideas off of = (I throw an idea at you, then get feedback, then throw out another idea at you to get feedback on)

Bounce ideas with = (I throw an idea at you and get feedback, then it's your turn to throw an idea)

So, "I'd love to bounce a couple ideas off of you" becomes "I'd like to bounce some ideas with you" which seems to sound a bit better from a collaboration standpoint.

Stef and Maxim Levinsky have reacted to this post.
StefMaxim Levinsky

what about: "lets pick up each other brain on that topic we both are interested in"

Lucio Buffalmano and Maxim Levinsky have reacted to this post.
Lucio BuffalmanoMaxim Levinsky

Both are much better approaches, addressing the main weakness of the original sentences:

  • Bounce ideas off of you = you listen and give me feedback
  • Bounce ideas with = we both (seek to) enrich each other

And

  • Pick your brain = I pick, you get picked
  • Pick each other's brain = we both learn from each other
Stef and Maxim Levinsky have reacted to this post.
StefMaxim Levinsky
Have you read the forum guidelines for effective communication already?

small Off topic

to what region or country time zone is the forum attuned to?

here were i am it is 2:22 past midnight yet this post I just did appears under "November 19, 2020, 8:21 am"

BTW, my post above broke the "praise publicly, criticize privately rule". I figured it would be OK since all of these responses are public for review anyway, but reading it back still doesn't feel right.

So, I've attached a revised version that makes the information private. Lucio, if you could delete the one above please, that would be great.


I'm looking into working with a partner on growing one of my businesses.

One candidate I'm considering has an "About" page on her website where she has some proof of clients she was able to acquire on LinkedIn for her own business using LinkedIn funnels. She's shown that she knows how to reach out to people on LinkedIn, market what she brings to the table, AND get a response on top of turning them into clients later.

So, right now, she's teaching other business owners how to use LinkedIn to network for clients as she does for her own business.

Here is one of the responses she received via LinkedIn from a potential student:

He leads with honesty, saying he uses networking to acquire clients as she does but is inexperienced in terms of using the LinkedIn platform for networking.

Then, he begins fielding request after request without making any moves to make this a win-win for her.

The "Please can we have a small Skype call" isn't so bad because it's implied they would be discussing her offer further if he's interested. And, she invested the initial social effort to screen him for interest in collaboration. So, as far as requests go, this would be something she's glad to hear since he's telling her he's interested enough to talk further. That means the request isn't for the call itself but in the medium of which the call takes place (Skype, WhatsApp, etc.). But, he takes that inch and goes a mile.

The "thank you a lot" would be a little annoying if I were the receiver because there hasn't been any agreement yet. As a matter of fact, it feels like he threw that "thank you" in there as a show of politeness to ease the stress of the multitude of requests. It doesn't seem like he's using "thank you" here to imply that there would be agreement. So, it's annoying, but it's still OK in my book.

Then, he requests to learn more about her experience in another business program. This is more than a WIIFT fail, but a future value-signaling fail. If she agrees to do that and has nothing but good things to say about that other business program, what's to stop him from becoming a student of that other program and giving them his money? Not only have you increased her incentive to lie, but if she's not the lying type, you've increased your chances of rejection of that request.

And, the "thanks a lot in advance" can work here as a "thanks for your consideration", which is good. So, no issues there. Still, this person claims to use networking to secure most of their clients yet has numerous networking mistakes littered throughout his response.

Perhaps, a better response might have been:

A: How we get our clients today is mainly through networking (lets her know there is a synergy between what she teaches and what he does which signals he could be a good fit). I have never tried LinkedIn for this purpose, but I'm interested in learning more about your methodologies (slight future value-signaling: "I'm interested in learning from you").

If setting up a quick Sype chat works for you (empowers her to say "no") that'd be great (nudges her to say "yes"). If not, let me know what you'd prefer as I'd love to discuss some possibilities (future value-signaling: "I'm open to discussing collaboration/win-win").

Thanks for your consideration and for reaching out (uses polite "thank you" gesture in a way that better maintains rapport), looking forward to hearing back from you (nudges for a response with a final showing of interest).

Kind regards,

A

When Lucio mentioned that WIIFT can make you come across as a nuisance, I think that's especially so in cases of asking for a lot without giving back anything. And, that is definitely something I've been guilty of in the past. So, hopefully, this illustrates a better way to approach this situation.

BTW, you can compare that message above to this one which was given in response to the same message she sent out:

That looks like a guy who "gets it".

You're more than welcome to leave a comment below on these comparisons.

Lucio Buffalmano and Matthew Whitewood have reacted to this post.
Lucio BuffalmanoMatthew Whitewood

Hey Ali,

Yes, the second was miles ahead.

Ali: Then, he requests to learn more about her experience in another business program.

Yes, I agree that was not a good idea.
He could have asked something about that during the call, if things were going alright. But to ask it in advance felt like he was to take as much as possible, while it was far from certain he was going to give anything.

Have you read the forum guidelines for effective communication already?

Thanks for your note, Lucio. I also would have waited until the actual call when some rapport has been built up over a good video chat.

I found another guy who's what I would consider a master networker. He uses and teaches power dynamics in his networking strategies and it's the first I've seen someone who knows so much about power dynamics outside of TPM. I'm planning on studying under him sometime in June.

This is an email he received from one of his readers:

And, one of the notes he made on this email:

R: "Notice that in the second paragraph, he actually acknowledges that he should focus on ME (the busy person)…and then he does exactly the opposite! No, no, no. If I ever find out one of you sends an email like this, I will find you, fly out to meet you (I have a lot of free time), and kill you myself. Jackasses."

We know by now in this thread there are more than a few WIIFT fails here. A quick question on this email though, when is it good to draw attention to negatives?

For example, in another forum post, there was a member who said to his boss (or a co-worker), "Sorry you have to go back and redo all of that work." That called out a negative. And, there was a note that by doing that you're reminding them of all of the work they have to do now which can make them more upset.

In another situation, there was a calling out of one's own negative (directness) in saying, "...instantly bold question...". And, that was described as being good.

Chris Voss recommends calling out your negatives using "accusations audits". But, I feel like, depending on the situation, listing negatives about yourself can cause the other side to view you as insecure due to the "How Submissiveness Sounds — Lowering Expectations" (Ex: “Guys, maybe this is silly, but… “.).

When would you guys say it's OK (and even good) to draw attention to negatives?

Nice example, Ali, loved it.
Quote from Ali Scarlett on January 25, 2021, 4:21 am

I found another guy who's what I would consider a master networker.

This is an email he received from one of his readers:

And, one of the notes he made on this email:

R: "Notice that in the second paragraph, he actually acknowledges that he should focus on ME (the busy person)…and then he does exactly the opposite! No, no, no. If I ever find out one of you sends an email like this, I will find you, fly out to meet you (I have a lot of free time), and kill you myself. Jackasses."

 

That email started not so bad, it was grabbing attention.

But then it really did turn badly.

Also, you don't wanna parade "you're not going to gain anything from me".
Once a cold reach out wrote something like this early on in his email:

"No, I'm not gonna buy your course".

And I thought that was so unnecessary.

What's the point of saying to someone "you're not gonna get anything from me"?

It might seem honest, but it's one of those cases where honesty is not a virtue, and might be outright entitled/aggressive/mean.

Because when you say "you're not gonna get anything", you're power-scalping, it's equivalent of saying:

You're not going to get anything from me = You wanted to get something (but I won't give it to you)

It's a terrible way of framing the receiver.
Why are you framing me as so calculative?

And at the same time, you're also taking a power position in that imaginary exchange: I wanted to give you something (or so you say), and you're spurning me.

In my case, I wasn't even thinking of "pitching" him or anything.
As a matter of fact, if I had to be as "honest" as he was, I didn't even want this unknown guy's email in my inbox.

When you say "you're not going to get much", you are making it about pure exchange.
And that could be OK, BUT if as soon as you make it purely about exchanging, you also say you're not gonna give anything, then that doesn't work.

Because that's the second part:

You're not going to get anything = I'm not going to give you anything = I'm not a giver = I'm a taker

You've already removed yourself from the possibility of giving value. Now you're also asking something? Immediate value-taker.

THE NETWORKER = THE CRITICAL JUDGE

Feel free to share this guy's name, if you want.

He's doing some humblebragging there and some covert power moves.

CALLING OUT NEGATIVES / MISTAKES

Not sure I understood the exact question there, feel free to open a thread for it and share some of the examples.

Have you read the forum guidelines for effective communication already?

You actually just helped me understand with your answer Lucio, thanks!

It seems you should only draw attention to your negatives if it empowers the other side.

Examples:

Him: hey lucio 😀

instantly bold question haha: are you making much with your course?

This person draws attention to the negative in this situation: the instantly bold question. But, by drawing attention to it here, it doesn't create a situation where he's aiming to covertly imply that you must answer his questions regardless of how forward or direct (which would imply he has the authority over you to pull that). Instead, he draws attention to it to empower you to respond with more power.

Him: "Hey man, I heard you have to go back and redo all of my work because I accidentally deleted the file."

In this case, drawing attention to the negatives in the situation (him having to redo all of the work and it being your fault) doesn't empower the other side with anything. It doesn't enable them to get the work done any faster or create more time for themself (i.e. it doesn't add value). It only serves to remind them of everything they now have to spend their valuable time doing because of you.

Him: "...you would probably not see any financial gains from meeting with me. You might not gain anything at all from me..."

This draws attention to the negatives in the situation. And, drawing attention to it here doesn't empower the other side. The receiver now knows they will get no benefit from doing what you want. And, now, I might even go so far as to say that this email has become value-taking because the "busy" receiver is now spending their valuable time reading the entire email as you go on and on about how you have no intentions of ever giving them anything. At the very least, you could let them know that you're willing to do your best to make it up to them some time down the line.

Still, I like that this sender seemed like a cool guy who simply didn't know better at the time. There was no, "I want to get rich and I know you're a really rich guy, so I want to pick your brain for a couple of hours over coffee." It was, "I'm basically looking to meet people in New York, and I think you would be a good [cool] person to meet and have a good rapport with." The only issue is that the sender has already framed himself as a value-taker, so "you would be a good person to meet (so we can potentially become friends)" got reframed as "you would be a good asset in my network (so I can get as much out of you as possible)" in the email.

An unfortunate mistake, but I still would have been curious to hear that guy's story. After all, it's not like they teach power dynamics in school, so mistakes like these are common anyway.

P.S. I kept this in this thread since it pertains to the case study above and improperly drawing attention to negatives is one of the WIIFT fails we saw here.

Lucio Buffalmano has reacted to this post.
Lucio Buffalmano

An unfortunate mistake, but I still would have been curious to hear that guy's story. After all, it's not like they teach power dynamics in school, so mistakes like these are common anyway.

True, there was no malice in that guy's email, just a lack of skills/knowledge.

That's why the author writing "jackasses" was unneeded, in my opinion.
And probably self-harming, too. If his audience is there to learn from those mistakes, it means that his audience might not be that more advanced than that guy. So he's basically saying "jackass" to a chunk of his own audience.

A "social climbing in absentia" power move: you attack an anonymous guy who is not even present as a way of saying "he was chasing but he was clueless, I have no time for him because I'm so much better than him".

Have you read the forum guidelines for effective communication already?