99% of Networking Is a Waste of Time

HBR article, by Greg McKeown. Original is here: https://hbr.org/2015/01/99-of-networking-is-a-waste-of-time

Building the right relationships — networking — is critical in business. It may be an overstatement to say that relationships are everything, but not a huge one. The people we spend time with largely determine the opportunities that are available to us. As venture capitalist and entrepreneur Rich Stromback told me in a series of interviews, “Opportunities do not float like clouds in the sky. They are attached to people.”

To say Stromback is a great networker is an understatement: he was introduced to me as “Mr.Davos” for good reason. He has spent the last ten years attending the Mecca of networking events  — held by the World Economic Forum every year in Davos-Klosters, Switzerland. The New York Times described him as the “unofficial expert on the Davos party scene.” Every year, he knows where the big events will be because he has so many people feeding him information, and he makes sure to be at the center of the action. Over time, this has turned into a surreal set of relationships. When a Middle East Prince was asked to meet with some Fortune 500 CEOs, he reached out to Stromback to attend and facilitate the meeting; when the Vatican was trying to negotiate a peace treaty of sorts they asked Stromback to help.

People also come to him because they feel they’re not getting enough value at Davos. “They chase for more and get less,” says Stromback, who finds the notion almost unimaginable. “The forum is the most influential community in the world. It’s the United Nations, G20, Fortune 500, Forbes List, tech disrupters and thought leaders all brought into one.”

Much of what he has learned from a decade at Davos flies in the face of generally-accepted networking advice. Below are snippets of my conversations with Stromback about his counterintuitive advice. Use it at Davos  — or any other networking event:

Don’t care about your first impression. “Everyone gets this wrong. They try to look right and sound right and end up being completely forgettable. I’m having a ball just being myself. I don’t wear suits or anything like that. I do not care about first impressions. I’d almost rather make a bad first impression and let people discover me over time than go for an immediate positive response. Curiously, research I read years ago suggests that you build a stronger bond over time with someone who doesn’t like you immediately compared to someone who does. Everything about Jack Nicholson is wrong, but all of the wrong together makes something very cool.”99 percent of any networking event is a waste of time. “99% of Davos is information or experience you can get elsewhere, on your own timeframe and in a more comfortable manner.  When I had my white badge access [an official pass to the conference center] — which I don’t bother with anymore — my friends would laugh because I never went to a session.  [But] that’s not where the highest value is. What you can’t get outside of Davos is the ability to have so many face-to-face interactions which either initiate or further key relationships.”

Sleep from 4-8PM every day. “I nap every day in Davos sometime between the hours of 4-8pm. It’s the most efficient time to catch up on sleep so I can be fresh when the time is opportune. The opportune moments happen while dancing at one of the nightcaps or at a chateau where only a select group of people is invited. The conversations there can go on until the early morning hours.”

The key to networking is to stop networking. “Nobody wants to have a ‘networking conversation,’ especially those who are at the highest levels of business and politics. They are hungry for real conversations and real relationships. It just has to be authentic, genuine and sincere. I don’t look at people’s badges to decide if they are worth my time. Davos is 3,000 influential people and I need to be selective, yet authentic  — focused, yet open to possibilities. In the end, I put myself in the most target-rich area and then just go with the flow and spend time with who I enjoy.

You’re not required to go to the big-name parties. “I maintain a broad and deep global network of C-level relationships without wining and dining face-to-face with people 90% of the time. But you need to know where people will be. For example, one year I told someone, “Don’t go to the Bill Gates party this year.” He asked me why? And I told him, “Because no one will be there.” He went and couldn’t believe I knew ahead of time. But I just knew the party was at the wrong time in the wrong location. It’s all about understanding where to be and when.”

Live in Detroit (or somewhere like it) the rest of the year. “Most people who are focused on building relationships at the highest levels live in London, New York City and Washington, D.C. They are immersed in the scene 24-7. I prefer to be disengaged 90% of the time. I live in Bloomfield Hills, in the Detroit area, and I don’t do anything social there. I love Detroit because no one comes to visit, and there are very few distractions. This is my escape for crucial family time. Being removed from the fray 90% of the time reduces a lot of drama.”

As Stromback  — a self-declared essentialist  — put it, “Davos is 99% distractions; you have to know what to avoid.” When asked how he would respond to the idea that most people don’t like networking because it’s time intensive and distracting from their “real work” he said, “The answer is to be extremely efficient and focus on what is truly essential.” This jibes with my own personal point of view on the world: Almost everything in life is worthless noise, and a very few things are exceptionally valuable. This is as true in networking as it is in almost every other area of life.

Two Kinds of People You Should Never Negotiate With
by Judith White
http://blogs.hbr.org/2014/06/two-kinds-of-people-you-should-never-negotiate-with/

The first thing negotiation experts teach is to “separate the people from the problem.” The vast majority of the time, this is sound advice. But as a psychologist, I know that approximately 1% of the time, people are the problem.  And in such cases, normal negotiation strategies just don’t work. Here’s how to recognize that rare situation and what to do about it.

First, determine what sort of person or people you’re trying to negotiate with (i.e. your counterparty).

Here are two types of counterparties you should negotiate with, even when it seems difficult.

1. Emotional counterparties. Emotion in and of itself shouldn’t preclude you from reaching a successful agreement – it’s natural for people to feel strong emotion in a conflict situation. Once the conflict is identified and addressed, and parties are allowed to vent, emotion usually dissipates. Keep in mind that some people (and cultures) simply express more feelings than others. Also, some negotiators use emotion strategically to influence the other party. Recognize the emotion, but don’t let it stop you from negotiating.

2. Unreasonable counterparties. We often think people are being unreasonable when they don’t agree with our logic and evidence. But more often, people who disagree with us are simply seeing different problems, and even different sets of facts, than we are. Even if you think the other party is being unreasonable, it’s still possible to bridge the gap and close a deal.

But here are two types of counterparties you should never negotiate with:

1. A counterparty who alternates between conciliation and provocation. People are usually more provocative, or difficult to deal with, at the outset of a negotiation. Then they become more conciliatory as the outlines of a settlement develop. Beware the person who is conciliatory at first, then becomes provocative — and then when you’re about to walk away becomes conciliatory again, and then provocative again. This behavior suggests that he will never be satisfied, nor finished, with the negotiation. What he wants is not a negotiated settlement, but control — over the process and over you. The time and energy it will take to continue will eventually outweigh any potential gains you could achieve through negotiation.

2. A counterparty who persists in seeing people in terms of absolute good and evil. Negotiation is a method for resolving conflicts of interest, not for adjudicating who is at fault. Most people, once they understand this, are willing to exchange concessions in order to satisfy their underlying interests. Watch out for someone who describes people as absolutely good and blameless, or as absolutely evil and responsible. This behavior suggests that he or she lacks the mindset necessary for negotiation. What this person wants is for evil people to be held accountable and punished, and because you are in a conflict with her, you may fall into that category. Walking away would deprive her of the opportunity to punish you. Therefore, if you negotiate, you can expect the process to be painful. You can also expect not to receive meaningful concessions, because this type of person does not believe you deserve them.

Even the best negotiators cannot reach a win-win outcome with people like this, as their underlying interests can’t be addressed with a settlement. The best negotiation advice and practice will not help you in these rare situations. Instead, here are four steps you should take:

Be realistic. This person is not going to change. There is no negotiation strategy you can use to make him or her change. Your goal should be to extricate yourself with the most gains (or least losses) possible. Let’s say you have a tenant behind on the rent. It’s worth negotiating with an emotional, even unreasonable tenant. Deep down, her primary interest is to keep the apartment. She can ultimately be trusted to act in her own interest. On the other hand, it’s not worth negotiating with an alternatively conciliatory, then provocative tenant who blames his neighbors and the property manager for his situation. Deep down, his primary interest is not the apartment; it’s his need to control the people around him.

Stop making concessions. The purpose of concessions is to reach an agreement, but since you’ll never do that (no matter how much you’re willing to give up!), don’t waste your time. That doesn’t mean you won’t incur significant losses. Your goal should be to minimize those losses. For example, if someone on your team fits the description of a no-win negotiator, you may already have made many concessions and picked up her share of the work, while she has yet to follow through on her promises to you. Enough! Do whatever is necessary to get the project finished, but stop making offers to her.

Reduce your interdependence. Take whatever steps you can to reduce your interdependence with this person. You don’t want to depend on him for anything, or owe him anything, going forward. This means, for example, that a lump sum payment for services is better than a payment plan. Working independently on separate pieces of a project is better than working together on the whole thing. If you must continue to work with this person, remember that even very immature children can still play nicely side-by-side if each is given his or her own set of toys.

Make it public, hold them accountable, and use a third party if you can. Avoid private discussions, if possible. Get everything out in the open and put everything in writing. Try to bump accountability to the next level, so someone higher up has to take action if the other party does not follow through on his or her obligations. If you can utilize a third party, like a mediator, arbitrator, or judge, then do so.

Remember, 99 times out of 100, your counterpart has rational underlying interests that you will eventually discover with patience and the right strategies. The secret to negotiating, after all, is to find out what the other party wants and how much it’s worth to him. In those rare cases when your counterparty wants to use the negotiation to control or punish you, however, it doesn’t matter how much it’s worth to him. It’s worth more to you to be free of him and able to get on with your business. Isn’t it?

Tough love

So I just read another interesting post on the HBR blog:  "The fine art of tough love" by Joanne Lipman

The 5 concepts the author brings up are as follows and bolded. My comments follow.

1. Banish empty praise.
And banish empty compliments as well (which is the actual definition of tough love of course)
2. Set expectations high.
This brings us back to the "aim high" principle I am fond of. "Shoot for the moon, if you miss you'll end up with the stars".
3. Articulate clear goals – and goal posts along the way.
Yes, yes, yes. Setting attainable intermediary goal does wonders.
4. Failure isn’t defeat.
This is where the U.S. have an edge on so many other cultures. Grit, resolve in the face of failure.
5. Say thank you.
Her supervisor is spread so thin that he is putting out proverbial fires all day.  “He has the time to tell us what we did wrong,” she said. “He doesn’t have time to tell us when we do something well.”

N°5 is a big one, however let me improve on it. Saying "thank you" in a management setting is actually not that great because it puts us in a "selfish" position. Thank you entails somebody did something for US, because WE asked for it.

Therefore let's replace "thank you" by "congratulations" / "good job" and similar expressions... This entails somebody did not do something because he was asked to do it, but that he did something because it had to be done and because it was for the greater good.
When I think back to best managers I ever had or have been in contact with, they all strictly applied this concept. It wasn't about them, it was about the task at hand.

Last but not least:
- tough love can only work when the manager has actual expertise and added value to bring to his team and collaborators.
- let's not forget the love part. Sounds very hippy, but without the love part, we would just be tyrants.

When You Criticize Someone, You Make It Harder for that Person to Change

Great article by an HBR blogger True in work and life.

When You Criticize Someone, You Make It Harder for that Person to Change
by Daniel Goleman

“If everything worked out perfectly in your life, what would you be doing in ten years?”

Such a question opens us up to fresh possibilities, to reflect on what matters most to us, and even what deep values might guide us through life. This approach gives managers a tool for coaching their teams to get better results.

Contrast that mind-opening query with a conversation about what’s wrong with you, and what you need to do to fix yourself. That line of thinking shuts us down, puts us on the defensive, and narrows our possibilities to rescue operations. Managers should keep this in mind, particularly during performance reviews.

That question about your perfect life in ten years comes from Richard Boyatzis, a professor at the Weatherhead School of Management at Case Western, and an old friend and colleague. His recent research on the best approach to coaching has used brain imaging to analyze how coaching affects the brain differently when you focus on dreams instead of failings. These findings have great implications for how to best help someone – or yourself — improve.

As I quoted Boyatzis in my book Focus: The Hidden Driver of Excellence, “Talking about your positive goals and dreams activates brain centers that open you up to new possibilities. But if you change the conversation to what you should do to fix yourself, it closes you down.”

Working with colleagues at Cleveland Clinic, Boyatzis put people through a positive, dreams-first interview or a negative, problems-focused one while their brains were scanned. The positive interview elicited activity in reward circuitry and areas for good memories and upbeat feelings – a brain signature of the open hopefulness we feel when embracing an inspiring vision. In contrast, the negative interview activated brain circuitry for anxiety, the same areas that activate when we feel sad and worried. In the latter state, the anxiety and defensiveness elicited make it more difficult to focus on the possibilities for improvement.

Of course a manager needs to help people face what’s not working. As Boyatzis put it, “You need the negative focus to survive, but a positive one to thrive. You need both, but in the right ratio.”

Barbara Frederickson, a psychologist at the University of North Carolina, finds that positive feelings enlarge the aperture of our attention to embrace a wider range of possibility and to motivate us to work toward a better future. She finds that people who do well in their private and work lives alike generally have a higher ratio of positive states to negative ones during their day.

Being in the positive mood range activates brain circuits that remind us of how good we will feel when we reach a goal, according to research by Richard Davidson at the University of Wisconsin. That’s the circuit that keeps us working away at the small steps we need to take toward a larger goal – whether finishing a major project or a change in our own behavior.

This brain circuitry — vital for working toward our goals — runs on dopamine, a feel-good brain chemical, along with endogenous opioids like endorphins, the “runner’s high” neurotransmitters. This chemical brew fuels drive and tags it with satisfying dollops of pleasure. That may be why maintaining a positive view pays off for performance, as Frederickson’s research has found: it energizes us, lets us focus better, be more flexible in our thinking, and connect effectively with the people around us.

Managers and coaches can keep this in mind. Boyatzis makes the case that understanding a person’s dreams can open a conversation about what it would take to fulfill those hopes. And that can lead to concrete learning goals. Often those goals are improving capacities like conscientiousness, listening, collaboration and the like – which can yield better performance.

Boyatzis tells of an executive MBA student, a manager who wanted to build better work relationships. The manager had an engineering background; when it came to getting a task done, “all he saw was the task,” says Boyatzis, “not the people he worked with to get it done.”

His learning curve involved tuning in to how other people felt. For a low-risk chance to practice this he took on coaching his son’s soccer team – and making the effort to notice how team members felt as he coached them. That became a habit he took back to work.

By starting with the positive goal he wanted to achieve – richer work relationships – rather than framing it as a personal flaw he wanted to overcome, he made achieving his goal that much easier.

Bottom line: don’t focus on only on weaknesses, but on hopes and dreams. It’s what our brains are wired to do.

Why a Great Individual Is Better Than a Good Team

Interesting and thought provoking HBR article.

I'll take away three main points from it:

- "how many mediocre people would it take to collectively beat Kasparov in a chess match?"
- Mediocre minds can also destroy the value or contribution of a great mind. No matter how good Kasparov is at chess, he would not do well playing doubles with a mediocre chess player against Bobby Fisher alone.
- Leaders need to make tough decisions all the time. One decision is easy: find the best people and empower them to do great things.

This only reinforces my belief that a management style that recognizes indivudual contribution and results is the way to go.

Power is taken, not given.

Nearly 2 months since my last post? Already? Wow time flies, especially when that time is spent plotting, fighting, manoeuvring in "high" level corporate politics in order to get that promotion you've been eyeing for over a year.

Well did I get it? No. And yes it sucks. But lets try to look at the bright side: within 6 months, I've been taught 2 or 3 MAJOR life lessons. They all hurt, badly, but hey I'm 30, so I'll recover.

Let me very briefly outline them, and maybe I'll post some detailed thoughts on each of them at a later date. Then again, maybe not.

Lesson 1: never, ever, ever trust anybody in the corporate and business world. Every one has an agenda. Of course, a fun part about business is meeting and working with great people with whom you travel, eat well, party, and of course build good business... This obviously builds strong links, which can blurr the lines. Just never forget, no matter how much fun you have and no matter how much great business you build... the simple fact is that your interests vary and everyone has different agendas. Never loose sight of that or you will get burned.

Lesson 2: the corporate world is not a meritocracy. See previous posts. Definitly not.

Lesson 3: power is TAKEN, not given. Do NOT expect to be given anyting, and never rely on "the good judgement" of anyone. TAKE what you want.

I'll end this short entry by copy/pasting this short blog post from Jeffrey Pfeffer that more adequatly sums up my current dark thoughts. The original can be found here.


Take Care of Yourself First
9:31 AM Wednesday July 14, 2010
by Jeffrey Pfeffer

Drafts of my new book on power (and the HBR article drawn from it) provoke strong reactions. One reason is that I show little concern for any aspect of organizational effectiveness. In stark contrast to virtually all of the management literature, I focus on ensuring that people build the insights and skills that will ensure their organizational survival and success.

My perspective is that organizations — which have laid off millions, which have workplaces filled with disengaged and dissatisfied employees, and which regularly, even in partnerships, cast people aside — can (and do) take care of themselves. My point of view is quite consistent with the popular idea of employees as free agents and the evidence on the ever-weakening bonds between people and their employers.

This is not to say that by helping people help themselves I am in any away against organizational effectiveness. A manager's success and the success of her employer are positively related. But let's be clear — this relationship is often small and sometimes absent. In the world of financial services, Stan O'Neal of Merrill Lynch and Frederick Raines of Fannie Mae were just two of many executives who oversaw the downfall of their companies while walking away with many millions of dollars. At lower levels, research shows that salary and job progression depend on educational credentials, years of experience, social similarity, and political skill, not just performance (either individual or organizational). It's not enough to do good work. People who are not politically skilled will be outmaneuvered.

This basic fact of organizational life hit me again just the other day as a woman who had effectively run one of the centers at Stanford Business School for more than a decade sat in my office on the verge of tears. As part of a staff survey, one of her recently-hired subordinates had sabotaged her by questioning her efforts and commitment. The center directors she had served so well — and who, by the way, up until that point had consistently praised her — chose not to get involved. Now she is on her way out, good work, helpful demeanor, and center success notwithstanding.

Should my friend have been caught by surprise? Or should she have been more aware of what her "colleague" might be up to, and how she might protect herself? Focused on getting the work done and confident in its quality, she learned, as many others have, that organizational life is not always fair.

The first and most important message in my course on the "Paths to Power" (pdf) and in the writing I do on that subject is that you need to take care of yourself — and do so by whatever means necessary. Don't rely on the kindness of strangers, much less the unselfish support of colleagues or the good auspices of your employer. You have to fend for yourself, or like my friend and soon-to-be former coworker, you may find yourself in a bad situation.


Jeffrey Pfeffer is the Thomas D. Dee II Professor of Organizational Behavior at the Graduate School of Business, Stanford University, where he has taught since 1979. His forthcoming book from HarperBusiness is Power: Why Some People Have It and Others Don't.

MANAGE YOUR ENERGY, NOT YOUR TIME

Tony Schwartz and Catherine McCarthy

"Time is a finite resource, but energy can be systematically expanded and renewed. Schwartz and McCarthy of the Energy Project describe how to establish rituals that will build energy in four key dimensions: the body, emotions, mind, and spirit. For instance, harnessing the body's ultradian rhythms by taking intermittent breaks restores physical energy. Rejecting the role of a victim and instead viewing events through three hopeful lenses defuses energy-draining negative emotions. Avoiding the constant distractions that technology has introduced increases mental energy. And participating in activities that give you a sense of meaning and purpose boosts the energy of the spirit. The new workday rituals succeed only if leaders support their adoption, but when that happens, the results can be powerful: individuals respond by bringing all their energy wholeheartedly to work -- and both companies and their people grow in value."

Highly recommended reading. Check out HBR.org.