|
What is your impression of networking? To
many, it’s an insincere trade of favors or, at best, an elegant way of
using people to get what you want. I actually asked this question of a
group of PhD students at a Top 5 engineering school and one student near
the front asked, “You mean, with other people?”
Conversely, what’s your impression of relationships? When talking about
relationships, most use characteristics such as trust, depth, and vested
interest. So, if relationships have been around since the Ice Ages and w
e all know what they are, why is it that we’re becoming increasingly
disconnected? In many ways, we’re losing our ability to touch people!
Robert Putnam, in his bestseller Bowling Alone, clearly describes how
our health, our democracy, and yes, even our happiness, depend on a
certain amount of social capital. Yet for many, when it’s easier to send
someone a voicemail who works three offices down the hall instead of
walking over for a conversation, or to send them a text message instead
of picking up the phone and calling them, is there really any question
about the dramatic erosion of our sense of community? Every day, we pass
people in the hallways wearing company badges (so we know they work
there), but we have no idea who they are! When someone transfers, we’ll
send out a memo that says, “Bob has joined our team,” but make no
mention of his spouse and young children who just moved across the
country, don’t know a soul here, and are struggling to fit in. Here’s an
idea – as the department manager or division executive, why don’t you
have Bob and Mary (that’s her name from the personnel file by the way)
over to your home with a group of his peers and their spouses for them
to all get to know each other. Here’s a “Dadaism” for you – people deal
with people they know, like and trust!
As a leader, if you genuinely believe that your human capital is your
most valuable asset and a clear differentiator in the marketplace, you
must search for, assess, on-board, train, develop, coach, and constantly
align that talent for what the organization needs today, as well as
anticipating its future requirements. And when things don’t work out,
try to outplace that talent with the least amount of disruption to the
business. Ask yourself, what part of this formula couldn’t benefit from
stronger relationships? If we all know the value of relationships, why
do so few of us practice the fundamentals daily?
You have an opportunity to build relationships every minute of every
day. Yet, most people go through each day with their head buried in
checklists and action items. Building and nurturing relationships must
become the dye in the fabric, not the patch. Networking functions are
patches; drive-by-greetings are patches; insincere getting and giving
business cards are patches. Let me save you the time – the Yellow Pages
serves the same purpose. Relationships should be the dye in the fabric.
They should permeate through who you are and the culture of the team
you’re building.
Helpful tools are social networking technologies such as LinkedIn,
ZoomInfo, and Spoke, which automate the mundane and resource-intensive
tasks of data entry, analysis, search, and recommendations – but they
should never replace the fundamental value of trusted, value-based
introductions. Users of these tools should also never forget that there
are three fundamental types of networkers: Givers (God bless Mother
Theresa), who give altruistically; Takers (we’ve all known some), who
only call or email when they want something; and Investors, who see
their personal, functional and strategic relationships as their most
valuable asset, and consistently aim at more effectively identifying,
building, nurturing, and leveraging those investments for a quantifiable
return on those relationships.
Which one are you? Giver, Taker, or Investor? If I were to ask three of
your colleagues, customers, executives, or even friends, which one would
they say you are?
 |
David Nour is a featured speaker
at the AVDA 2010 Annual Conference. Learn more about David and
Relationship Economics at
www.relationshipeconomics.net. |
|
|
