Networking Grid

As social beings, not only do we derive good health through socialization, but also genuine value exchange - of ideas, help and service etc.  So networking, which is an often used word in business circles, if properly practiced could be mutually beneficial.  However it may not be practiced for maximum mutual benefit.

Why I came up with this idea: Recently I have been meeting lots of people in many walks of life in many geographies.  And I have been trying to figure out how to add value and receive value in each of these interactions.

An implication of this is that in order to network well, we need to come across as interested as well as interesting - to have a good conversation.  

To be interesting does not necessarily mean telling colorful tales or expressing great ideas.  Nor might interesting mean reciting facts.  Interesting may mean, being able to express one's ideas, but ensure that the speakers engaged in a conversation can agree on a set of facts.

A conversation is surely a give and take - one has to learn to be a listener and a speaker at the same time.

Similarly, to be an interested listener is to be able to discern from the speaker both their opinions, and the facts on which they base their opinions.

Perhaps it helps to think about how this idea might apply in real life situations.

Having taken a few different type of personality indicators such as Myers-Briggs, Hogan, DISC and others, it is clear that we are all grouped into distinct personality types, without judgement attached to it.  Thus we are generally who we are - and we need to discern this of ourselves and of others to be effective conversationalist (and networkers, as it were).

We can imagine a grid with four squares for this purpose.  One one side is being factual vs brimming with ideas.  On the other hand is being expressive vs being reticent.  We all fall somewhere along these lines as both speakers and listeners.

The grid below illustrates this.  (C1, C2 etc are conversationalists positioned on the grid).

For the purposes of deriving 'maximum benefit' from a conversation - being a good speaker and a good listener might require balancing facts and ideas?

That is, we are who we are and fall somewhere on the grid, that is best known to us.  However, if unconsciously as both speaker and listener, we are somewhere in the edges of this grid - could we still be productively engaged for the purpose of networking?

Finally, there is the role of trust - wherever one falls on the grid, when two people are engaged in a conversation - regardless of where conversationalist 1 and 2 are each on the grid and the distance that separates them, the role that trust plays should also be taken into account.  And trust comes from one's reputation (that precedes) and also from that which is earned by proper exercise of relationship development.

To summarize then, it appears that we are in constant conversation with colleagues, friends, family and in the community.  There is an opportunity to derive a lot of mutual benefit through these interactions.  It is perhaps important to recognize that it is not easy to be a good conversationalist - which takes being i) a good listener and speaker, ii) understand personality styles, iii) earn trust and iv) regulate oneself, inspite of instincts in such a way that the 'distance' between the conversationalists gets close enough that ideas can be exchanged productively.