How the Butterfly Effect Happens in Your Network

Last week, I had the honor of listening to Chris Rosati speak about his adventures, starting with how he pulled a Robin Hood caper with a Krispy Kreme truck.  Here's a five minute video about his exploits that's well worth the watch:

Chris has ALS and decided that the best way to spend his remaining days is to spread kindness.  He decided that giving people donuts, a random act of kindness, would be a great start.  And that was what it was: a start. Chris later started Inspire Media Network to create films about kind acts, and BIGG (Big Ideas for the Great Good) clubs to support school children exercising acts of kindness. 

You may be wondering, at this point, what this has to do with networks, leadership and networking.  Chris Rosati developed one more thing, which he calls "Butterfly Grants".  The Butterfly Grants are sums of money given to people so that they can make someone else smile, be happy, or feel joy. He hoped that this act would lead to a cascade of kindness somewhere: a Butterfly Effect of social action.  The Butterfly Effect is the idea that a small action in one place - say a butterfly flapping its wings in North Carolina - can have a huge effect somewhere else - say causing a hurricane in the South China Sea.

Chris's Butterfly Grants are trying to stimulate that in daily culture: a big change due to some small acts of kindness.  It's a wonderful metaphor.  Or more, because network science shows that behaviors spread through a network in unexpected ways. 

Nicholas Christakis of Harvard and James Fowler of the University of California, San Diego are researchers who found curious network effects when they took a non-traditional look at data from a longitudinal heart disease study.  They took the Framingham Heart Study data set and analyzed the relational information: who participants listed as family and who they listed as close contacts in case the researchers couldn't find them.  This created a network diagram for each interval where the heart research data was taken.  When they looked at how relationships interacted with behaviors, they found something amazing.

Weight and tobacco use are two of the variables that are measured for the study.  If someone in the study lost or gained weight, they found that their close friends were 30% more likely to have lost or gained weight.  More interesting than that is that when a friend of a friend lost or gained weight, someone was 10% more likely to have lost or gained. 

The direct friend effecting our behavior is intuitive. It makes sense that someone we see regularly and care about can affect our behavior and result in a weight shift.  But the fact that a person we don't see regularly, if at all, has an influence on us is pretty amazing.  And this wasn't just with weight loss.  Starting and stopping smoking had similar effects from friends and friends of friends. 

This is great news for Chris Rosati and his hope that acts of kindness can spread.  While no research has yet shown that kindness spreads, we've seen multiple behaviors spread through networks so that people we don't even know are effected by our actions.  That means that a random act of kindness can have a multiplying effect as it spreads through your network.  Network science proves the butterfly effect in people's actions! 

So what can you do with this knowledge?  First, if you haven't yet, go watch the video about Chris Rosati's life mission.  It is powerful.  Second, do something kind for someone.  Big, small, it doesn’t matter.  An act of kindness will then ripple through your network.

Finally, a key point to realize: as much as your network affects you, you affect your network.  This is the core concept behind "The Networked Leader": leaders makes choices to shape their network.  Not just what connections they have, but the quality of the climate in the network.   When you are kind, your network becomes more kind.  When you are supportive, your network becomes more supportive. While it may sound new-agey, network science shows that you do receive back from your network the behaviors you put out into it.

So create the network climate you want.  Want help?  Be helpful.  Want coaching?  Help someone learn.  Like Chris Rosati spreading kindness, spread what you want to see, and it will eventually permeate your network. 

The Power of Shared Goals

I started my career running outdoor teambuilding programs.  People joined me out in the woods for a series of absurd challenges that we would now call 'gamified learning', but back then, to sound more respectable, we called initiatives .  Regularly, people would ask if working on a puzzle or playing a game together really helped teams.  Some classic psychology research tell us it does. 

In 1954, researchers from the University of Oklahoma brought a group of Boy Scouts to the Robbers Cave State park as part of an experiment.  Their research goal was to understand how group identity formed - both a feeling of 'us' and 'them' - and explore a way to break down the division between groups. 

This research was in the grand tradition of mid-century psychology - involved, extensive and dramatic.  The 22 boys were divided into two different groups and placed in separate camping areas, far away from one another.  For the first week, there was no interaction.  Each group formed its own identity, naming themselves The Eagles and The Rattlers.  They even built internal hierarchies with some kids getting more respect than others. 

In the second week, competition was created.  The researchers began a round of games such as kick ball and tug of war pitting the two groups against one another.  The competition quickly spilled over to areas outside the game.  Each group became jealous of shared resources such as the mess hall and ball field.  Before the competition, very little inter-group conflict existed.  Now the level of tension rose so high that boys were pre-emptively planning violence if someone violated a team flag or perceived boundary.  The peak of conflict resulted in cabins being raided and personal property being stolen. 

The researchers were not finished yet.  In the final week, they increased the non-competitive interactions between the groups: shared mealtimes and shared times at the waterfront swimming zone.  This didn't change anything in the dynamics of the groups.  They were still Eagle vs Rattler, with animosity and name calling between the two. 

Something did change the relationship, though: first, a shared crisis.   A water pipe was sabotaged by the research team and the two groups were called upon to fix it.  At first hesitant to work together, they teamed up to find the problem and repair it before a water shortage effected them all.  This step was followed by a joint trip to a new campground where the two groups mingled.  Everyone helped set up tents, prepare food and even jump start the bus they took there.  The identities as members of a group were not erased, but the barriers seem tohave disappeared.  One researcher noted at the end of the experiment :

As they rode home from the last day, it was difficult to tell who was an Eagle and who was a Rattler.  The group had come together in a way that was unbelievable two weeks previous.  

So, what does the Robber's Cave experiment tell us beyond the fact that in the 50's they did the coolest experiments?  There are two big takeaways. 

• 1. We can be very terrible with people who are not part of our group. 

  2. Sharing a goal brings people together quickly. 

The first point is an inverse to the benefits to belonging:  when we think someone doesn't belong, we can be pretty bad to them. 

The second is the underlying principle behind most teambuilding initiatives.  Bring people together and give them a compelling, common goal, and they come together.  Coincidentally, it also puts people solidly in our operational network:  when we share a goal, we tend to share a process, and that helps generate a strong network connection. 

What can we do with this?  When you have a challenging relationship with someone, try to find something you both value and can work on as a pair.  A shared goal will bring you together, create a sense of unity and help move the relationship into a better place.

Be interested instead of interesting

Actual Book.  Not Actual Advice here.

I recently talked to Sheila Heen of Triad Consulting, and in that conversation she had an interesting response to the question of "How do you introduce yourself at a mandatory cocktail hour?"  First she mentioned her discomfort with that situation, despite her professional need to participate in it regularly.  Then she discussed her colleague's great skill at connecting with people in these events compared to her self-assessed clumsiness with them.  And finally after that pre-amble, she explained that a key she learned was to be more interested than interesting. 

Sheila described how her business partner would go to events, walk over to the bar and come back with the entire life story of a person he just met.  Sheila was shocked by this, started to watch him closely, and finally asked him what his trick was. His answer? Ask questions more than talk about himself.  Simple. 

Simple, but challenging.  It's common for us to be pre-occupied with "What do I say next?"  and "What do I want this person to know about me?"  When we focus on our own performance in the conversation, we come across, subtly, as a self-serving conversationalist.  Our goal in the conversation is all about ourselves and not about the person we talk to.  There is a term for this kind of behavior: conversational narcissism. 

Sociologist Charles Derber coined the term conversational narcissist in his book The Pursuit of Attention.  Derber analyzed over 1,000 conversations, in both one-on-one and group settings, and found that he could frame these conversations as competitions for attention and interest.  His framework was based on a subtle wrestling of control in a conversation, where most people tried to express themselves and understand others in a satisfying balance.  Some people, however, were disinterested in understanding, or even hearing, others.  These were the conversational narcissists, who steered the conversation to themselves whenever they could.

While some are extreme, we all have a little conversational narcissism in us.  Everyone likes to talk about themselves to some extent, because everyone appreciates a good listener.  The best way to be that listener for someone you have just met?  Be interested.

Dale Carnegie was an early advocate of being interested.   In his classic How to Win Friends and Influence People, Carnegie tells of a time he talked with a botanist:

But I had done this: I had listened intently. I had listened because I was genuinely interested. And he felt it…I told him that I had been immensely entertained and instructed - and I had. I told him I wished I had his knowledge - and I did. I told him that I should love to wander the fields with him - and I have. I told him I must see him again - and I did. And so I had him thinking of me as a good conversationalist when, in reality, I had been merely a good listener and had encouraged him to talk.

The amazing thing about this is that the botanist thought that Carnegie was a great conversationalist, when Carnegie spent more time asking questions than talking.  This is typical of the stories that Carnegie tells in his book.  His stories share skills, principles and practices to become more liked by being more interested in people than working to be interesting to people. 

So what can you do to be more interested?  Sheila taught herself to ask questions about the person she was speaking with.  Not just basic factual questions, but questions that could open up who they are. 

Instead of "What do you do?", she asks " How did you end up in the role you are in?" 

Instead of "Where do you live?" she asks 'Where did you grow up and how did that lead you here?" 

These questions invite an answer that is a story, one where the storyteller can be the protagonist. (We all love being the hero of our stories.)  It is more than just information exchange.  It is an expression of themselves. 

Another thing we can do to be interested is to follow a tactic from Derber: avoid shift responses and focus on support responses.  Shift responses are conversational tactics that steer the focus to yourself and your stories.  Support responses keep the other person at the center, and either agree or add more content.  For example, if someone says "I'm hungry", a shift response would be "Really?  I just ate.  Best sandwich I ever had."   A support response would be "Would you like to stop for lunch?" or "When did you eat last?" 

Support responses are the response of someone being interested.  Shift responses are the work of someone trying to be interesting and the center of attention.  If you are looking fora way to make a good connection, avoid the shift.

So when you find yourself in a mandatory cocktail hour, or the social equivalent, work to be interested instead of interesting:

·         Ask questions.  Not just factual questions, but questions that let people tell their story.  Try using 'how' questions instead of 'what'

·         Don't be a conversational narcissist.  Use support responses instead of shift responses.  When you speak up, try to use that as an opportunity to keep the conversation focused on the other person or their ideas.   Resist the urge to pull the focus to yourself

A Story about My Dad...

My father was an independent truck driver, which, when you are an 8 eight year old boy,  is one of the coolest jobs in the world.  He did short-haul work across New England, bringing wood, sod, fish, pipes, mulch - whatever needed delivering - to various building sites.  While it was a fascinating job, I always imagined my dad alone when I thought of him working.  Sitting in the cab, higher than any other drivers on the road, behind a steering wheel that my young arms couldn't even reach across.  He was a quiet man, a classic introvert,  and I thought that riding along alone suited him. 

Then one summer Dad bought a truck with a sleeper cab.  I went on deliveries with him all summer long and learned something interesting.  Dad would pull me out of bed at 4:00 am, and I would go back to sleep in the truck to wake up during the second or third stop at 7:30 am.  I watched Dad unload, navigate to the next delivery, unload again, and eventually go to breakfast at 10:00 am. 

During this, I saw that my dad wasn't alone.  Every stop required coordination with site managers, construction workers or landscapers.  Every pickup involved down time in the dispatcher's office while thy loaded his trailer with new materials.  And at all of these times, I saw a side of my Dad I had never seen.  Dad was chatty.

Chatty may not be the right word.  The term I like best for now is wala'au - a Hawaiian term that roughly translates to "talk story".  Dad would talk story at his stops. Sharing a joke or something small that happened in his day.  Asking someone he had met before abouttheir family or hobby.  Gently giving someone a hard time for a fumble they made.  Dad was great at talk story, and I came t realize, this made him a great connector. 

Most of the business that my Dad had was due to his talk story between hours in the truck.  As a young kid, I hadn't considered where work came from, but as I struck out on my own independent career in my 20's, I realized that Dad's habits involved some great skills I could adopt. 

What did my Dad do?  Part of it was related to being an introvert.  Part of it was just the power of small talk. 

First thing was that Dad listened.  He was a quiet sounding board for people, because he didn't feel compelled to chime in all the time.  Listening is a powerful way to make people feel valued. 

Secondly, Dad listened to, and talked about, small things.  While people often deride small talk, it is an essential part of getting to know people.  Small talk may be about the weather, but it is also about who we are.  Our small talk exposes our true selves - our small desires, our little annoyances.  In fact, current research suggests that small talk makes us feel a little more like we belong, and just a little better in general. 

So chat about the weather.  Ask about your coworker's kids's recital.  Discuss small things and most importantly, listen about small things.  Your connections will grow slowly and surely, and you will have a better day for it. 

From a Dirty Networker to Glue Guy

A coaching client recently called me from a professional conference.  The afternoon was blocked off for networking, so he "came back to the room to make some calls and maybe take a nap."  His reaction to the explicit networking time was not surprising.  People deeply dislike networking. In fact, people feel that networking is dirty.  Literally dirty.   A study out of Harvard showed how people reacted to using social events for professional gain.  Researchers Tiziana Casciaro, Francesca Gino and Maryam Kouchaki asked participants to either recall events where they deliberately attempted to make a business connection or asked them to recall an event where a relationship was started spontaneously.  After writing about their event, both groups were asked to play a fill-in-the-blank game.  The words with blanks included S __ __ P, W __ __ H, and S H __ __ R.  Each of these words can be filled with a cleaning related word (SOAP, WASH, SHOWER) as well as neutral words (SHIP, WISH, SHEAR).  The result of the word test was that people who thought of planned relationship building events were twice as likely to fill in words that were cleaning related than people who thought of spontaneous events.  The researchers concluded that just remembering instrumental networking experiences made participants feel dirty. 

But why?  Why would it bother us so much?  Connecting with someone because of the benefit that they give, rather than who they are, makes the relationship about you, not them.  To use the words of Cascario, Gino and Kouchaki, these are instrumental ties: connections where you make a tool of someone.   They are inherently selfish, and we may have a natural aversion to selfish behavior.  Some of our ancestors certainly do.

James Anderson studies Capuchin monkeys and their surprisingly human social behavior.  In one experiment, he and his fellow researchers had monkeys watch two humans exchange gifts.  One human was consistently selfish: they did not participate in a giving, or even reciprocal, manner in repeated exchanges.  When the humans were done demonstrating the exchanges, they each offered the Capuchin a treat.  The monkeys would regularly shun the human who demonstrated the selfish behavior.  The treats being offered by each researcher was the same, and the only behavior they saw was how the researchers interacted.  The scientists concluded that the monkeys were actively rejecting the selfish human in order to send him a signal about unacceptable behavior. 

So it's very likely that somewhere deep in our brains there are instincts to punish selfish social transactions.  And whether or not it comes from a genetic ancestor, even thinking about connecting for selfish ends makes us think about a need to clean.  The challenge is that we achieve more by connecting with people.  Sometimes we feel a need to connect with someone who can help us out.  If we want to connect in a way that doesn't feel dirty and doesn't risk being shunned, what do we do? 

Recently retired NBA Champion Shane Battier provides an answer.  Even though Battier is a member of a small club of basketball players who have won the NCAA Championship and NBA Championship, he always felt he didn't quite fit in.  A child of a mixed-race marriage, growing up he always felt like an outsider in whatever group he was a part of. In a recent article he wrote for The Players' Tribune, he describes the strategy he has used to fit in then that helped him in his career:

But early on, I figured out a simple concept that would guide me throughout the rest of my life: People like people who help them win. It doesn’t matter if someone thinks you’re goofy or nerdy or different, if you can help someone win at something, they’ll like you.  So you should have seen little Shane on the kickball field, mini afro and all. I was a beast on the diamond, diving for balls, sliding headfirst whenever I could -– and winning. It was never about the credit that I received. It was about the credit the team got. My teammates knew what I had done to help them and that’s what mattered. I didn’t even realize it at the time, but even back when I needed a hall pass to use the bathroom, I was a glue guy.

Battier built relationships not by trying to get what he could out of people, but by helping the people around him win.  His list of the qualities that it takes to be a glue guy includes being skillful enough to fill in where the team needed him; being willing to look dumb when he thought a teammate was too proud to ask a clarifying question; not being concerned about his individual statistics in the game;  and helping to build a community on a team through organizing team events like fantasy sports leagues. 

How well did Battier's glue guy strategy work?  The NCAA Championship and two NBA Championships may be good metrics.   But for me, Shane Battier power as a glue guy, and the effect of his connecting through helping others win, is best demonstrated by The Heatles.  For several years, Battier has run a karaoke event for his charity, the Take Charge Foundation.  Every year since joining the Miami Heat, the stars on his team join him in singing, on stage, in front of hundreds of people.  And sometimes looking like this:

The power of being a glue guy is the power of connecting with people who will help you, even to the point of looking foolish, without the result of you feeling like a dirty networker or being shunned for your selfish behavior.  Being a glue guy means winning by helping others win.

So work at being a glue guy/glue gal:

• Build community in your team. 
• Level up an essential skill that will keep you in the game. 
• Ask the questions others are too afraid to ask. 
• Win first, worry about personal stats later.

Old connections can be the best.

As I was writing this week, a friend sent me a text.  She was just called on to do a teambuilding event for her company with 3 hours' notice.  We had worked together doing team development courses 15 years ago and since then she has moved to the West Coast, so we don't get to see each other very often anymore. 

We traded a couple of texts back and forth, and then I called her.  We spent 20 minutes on the phone as I helped her work through what she could do without a dedicated space or any equipment readily available.  Problem solved, we chatted for a minute about when we might be able to connect, and then she went to go solve her problem. 

I don't mention this story to show how great a guy I am, but rather to show the power of reconnection.  Researchers from Rutgers, George Washington and Northwestern Business Schools found that old ties that we have left on the wayside are an amazing resource.  Dan Levin, Jorge Walter and Keith Murnighan asked executive MBA students to reach out to formerly close colleagues who they didn't interact with anymore.  They found that these dormant ties had the advantages of both strong and weak ties. 

Cutest dormant ties ever. 

Weak ties were first described by Mark Granovetter.  These are connections that don't occur regularly, and are consequently less intense in both emotional and information exchange.  A positive consequence of this is that weak ties are the main avenue for new information and resources to travel across social networks.  Networks tend to be clusters more than perfect webs of connections.  We interact with the same people regularly, and while that repeated interaction creates comfort, trust and a shared experience, it can result in an echo chamber.  Weak ties are people who are loosely associated with a particular group and act as a link between groups. 

The research on reconnecting with dormant ties showed that these old colleagues still shared a sense of trust and perspective of being in a shared cluster, even though years had passed.  As an extra benefit, they also provided new information and connections like a weak tie because of all of their experiences since last being a strong tie.  

So reach out to that old classmate or colleague to reconnect.  I know I often feel embarrassed in that attempt, but the research shows that great benefits can be found in rekindling old connections. 

Benefits of feeling like you belong

Not the actual Olympic Marathoners

I love it when a story pops up that connects with my work.

This past weekend, the US Olympic marathon trials occurred.  This event is the selection process for the team that the country will send to Rio in August.  During the women's trial, two training partners' experience inspired a story in New York Magazine. 

From the gun, two runners stood out in the women’s race, Shalane Flanagan and Amy Cragg. The two are friends and training partners, and on Saturday they matched from head to toe: identical racing kits, identical visors, even identical running-shorts tan lines. The pair kept toward the front of the pack, eventually breaking away from the rest for an impressive lead toward the end of the race. And then Flanagan started to flag, her slowdown especially apparent next to Cragg’s consistently strong strides. But instead of leaving her friend in the dust, Cragg stayed by her side. She ran ahead and got two water bottles — one for herself, one for Flanagan — and didn’t leave Flanagan behind until the very end of the race. Even as she eventually pulled away, she kept turning her head, as if to make sure her friend was still chugging along.

Flanagan went on to finish first, Cragg third.  Both made the Olympic team.  The author of the article goes on to point out a sports reporter suggesting that Flanagan would not have made the team without Cragg, and to argue that there is some science that supports this claim. 

The supporting science is research on motivation, social identity and minimal cues.   Stanford researchers Priyanka B. Carr and Gregory M. Walton ran a series of studies that found that feeling like part of a team made individuals work harder on tasks, even when the goal was unachievable.  Now, this finding in itself isn't that surprising.  Most of us have been on a team and felt that motivation as we work side-by-side, suffering and succeeding as a group. 

The interesting thing about this research was that the participants were alone.  Some were just told that they were part of a team, and some were not told anything.  Just being told they were part of a team increased effort by almost 50% in the experimental group. 

Research on groups shows that this isn't a fluke.  When we feel like a part of a group, huge benefits follow:

• We see group members as more open and responsible, whether we succeed or fail.

• We find group member arguments more convincing, rejecting outsiders opinions even when they are grounded on solid arguments. 

• We are more forthcoming with personal information and more likely to give help when we feel part of a group. 

Each of these experimental results happened without extensive 'team building'.  The experimental conditions were often implicit - a seating arrangement or reports of a fictional personality test - and still resulted in group effects.  It seems, as humans, we want to feel part of a group, and we see the opportunity to group in the smallest of details. 

So people want to be a part of groups, and seeing yourself as a part of a group has benefits in multiple arenas.  What can a leader do with this information?

• Find genuine connections with people that become cues you are in the same groups: shared hobbies, experiences, other uncommonalities.
• Make opportunities to come together - even eating together has benefits. 
• Because small cues matter, and small cues are forgotten over time, keep in touch with those you value your connection with, even if it's just a small reminder of your connection. 

Your Three Networks.

In recent years, I have been asked by many clients "How do I build my network?"  that begs a few questions:  Why? What are you trying to build?  Is 'build' the right metaphor for the actionyou are taking?  What is your network? 

For my first letter out, I will address that last question.  Because you don't have a network. 

You have three. 

At least, you have three networks that are important in a business and career context, which is my focus here.  Really, you have an infinite number of networks. To explain, let me refer to Social Network Analysis: Methods and Applications (Structural Analysis in the Social Sciences), by Stanley Wasserman and Katherine Faust; otherwise known as the 3 pound tome of Social Network Analysis (SNA). 

 The 3 lb tome is one of the key books for SNA researchers.  It lays out the fundamentals of network science and how to analyze relationships in a network.  In it, Wasserman and Faust tell us that networks are defined by what we are measuring.  They say "relations defined by linkages among units are a fundamental component of network theory."  Translated from academe to human, that means networks are the relationships between people or things, not the people themselves.  So you don't have A network. You have a work network, a family network, a fan network for your sports team, a network of DIYers.  Everything that you do in a social context is a network. 

Some might stop here and start hyperventilating.  'Now I have infinite networks? I wasn't even able to handle one!'  not to worry.  When talking about work, researchers from Harvard and Insead Business School in France found that three networks matter most for executives. 

Hermina Ibarra and Mark Lee Hunter interviewed thousands of executives who had come to her school for training.  In the process of that, she found that these executives had three networks that mattered most to them:  a network of people who they go to get stuff done, a network of people they go to learn and develop, and a network of people they go to for outside perspective.  Here's my take on these:

Connecting with people to get things done: this is the network of colleagues, vendors, clients subordinates and bosses that are essential to you producing the work you produce.  Formally I call this your Operational Network.  Informally, it's you GSD network.

Connecting to learn:  this network is more diverse, but often overlapping with your operational network.  Learning is both present-need focused and future oriented, so we tend to reach out beyond our work associates.  This network includes current and former teachers and classmates, mentors, and the person you ask how to file TPS reports.  I call this network the Developmental Network.

Ibarra and her colleague's third network was a strategic network, built deliberately to get outside insight.  When coaching mid-level executives and early career leaders, I found that this network didn't resonate with them.  What they did express was a common need for a Support Network, so I shifted my focus there.

Your Support Network consists of the people you go to when you are in need.  Instead of GSD, it's the SHTF network.  Support can come in a variety of forms: emotional support,  financial support, resources and insight. 

At this point, this sounds very interesting and academic.  Three networks?  That's nice.  So what?

Looking at your networks based on how you connect instead of who you are connected to has some really positive consequences.  You don't look over people and get obsessed with super-star connections.  You can manage your network in a way that balances future and current needs, so you don't find yourself in a network dead end. You are more likely to succeed in a new business.  

With all that in mind, what can you actually do differently with three networks instead of one?  First, take some time to map out your networks.  Put together three lists:

• Who do you got to for help getting things done?  Who comes to you with work to do?
• Who do you go to learn new things?  Who comes to you?  Who did you go to in the past?
• Who is there when you need a hand?  Who do you reach out to for emotional support?  Finance and resource support?

Those three lists will help you understand the landscape of your networks, and when it comes to develop them deliberately or to go to them with a novel request, you will be better prepared. 

If you'd like to see even more raw ideas, follow my Flipboard magazine, The Networked Leader.  It is a resource for notes and interesting articles I find. 

Uncommonalities: your secret to surviving mandatory social hour.

I posted this on LinkedIn last year.  It was my first take on putting my book work out into the world.  I am putting it hear to keep everything together. I am not sure about putting things up on LinkedIn or just linking to this blog now.  Maybe I will experiment a little.

Here you are again. The cocktail hour at the conference, training, mandatory work retreat for your company. They may or may not serve cocktails, but the intent is clear: you are supposed to network in a social environment. The organizers set aside this time in order to force people to socialize; build that mysterious 'social capital'. You, however, find yourself standing at a high top table, drink in hand, wondering what you are doing and how long until you can graciously slip out .

If that describes you, you are not alone. People dislike mandatory socializing, and they think that socializing for business gain is even worse. But you are there, and may as well make the best of it. And the best way to make the best of it is to make a game of it.

When I found myself in similar situations, I developed a game I called "Uncommonalities", based on the social psychology of groups and networks. In principal, uncommonalities has a single goal: find the least likely connection you can with the people you are meeting. When you meet a person, start by asking them about themselves to discover the interesting things about them. Not just the things that might interest you, but also the things that they find interesting about themselves. As you inquire about them, share similar facts about yourself and look for the least likely connection you can find. At that point, congratulate yourself on a job well done, but yelling out "I WIN!" is generally a poor idea at most networking events, so a silent celebration is best.

The reasons that Uncommonalities works as a networking strategy are that people enjoy talking about themselves, and when you give them that opportunity by being a good listener, you become a great conversationalist in their eyes. Being a good listener here involves keeping the focus on your conversation partner while still providing the opportunity revealing about yourself.

Sharing about yourself is an important part of the process. Podcaster, television host and comedian Chris Hardwick discusses his philosophy of connecting on his Nerdist podcast. His job on the podcast is to find out as much as he can about people for the benefit of his listeners. Hardwick's podcasts are ore conversational then journalistic, and he notes that "The way that conversations work is that you share stories until you find common ground.  If you just ask questions, people feel like they are interrogated." Even though we like talking about ourselves, conversations that are full of one-sided questions can get uncomfortable for people. Hardwick tries to relate by sharing his own stories. It's a way to give his guests a chance to breath and potential interesting points to connect with.

This is the key of uncommonalities. Finding connections is not just about interrogating your newly-found networking friend. It is about sharing and discovering in balance. This not only gives people that powerful opportunity to talk about themselves, but also a chance for you to find similar traits and experiences. Sharing these similar traits and experiences helps us engender a sense that social network researchers call homophily: the attraction we feel to people who are like us.

Not sure where to start? You are at the same event, so starting there is simple.   The shared practice of that event - your profession, your company, the learning topic - gives you an easy beginning. Ask them what brings them to the event, if they are presenting or if they found anything compelling in the previous day. If conversation doesn't come naturally from there, just try to understand your new connection's path to the event: ask them about where they live, and lived before; where they work and worked before.   Getting people to talk about where they have been and what they have done before is the easiest way to open up the conversation for coming to learn more about them and find that uncommonality.

Uncommonalities works by giving you a framework for your conversations that focuses on personal factors instead of personal gain. People don't enjoy being the feeling like you are connecting with them just to use them for something. Talking people about themselves and discovering your uncommonalities is the way to make a real connection rather than just another business card left in a pile on your desk.