connection and have a relationship that gives you an opportunity to do something for someone else.”
On Rifkin’s LinkedIn page, his motto is “I want to improve the world, and I want to smell good
while doing it.” As of September 2012, on LinkedIn, 49 people have written recommendations for
Rifkin, and no attribute is mentioned more frequently than his giving. A matcher would write
recommendations back for the same 49 people, and perhaps sprinkle in a few unsolicited
recommendations for key contacts, in the hopes that they’ll reciprocate. But Rifkin gives more than
five times as much as he gets: on LinkedIn, he has written detailed recommendations for 265 different
people. “Adam is off the charts in how much he helps,” says the entrepreneur Raymond Rouf. “He
gives a lot more than he receives. It’s part of his mantra to be helpful.”
Rifkin’s networking style, which exemplifies how givers tend to approach networks, stands in
stark contrast to the way that takers and matchers tend to build and extract value from their
connections. The fact that Rifkin gives a lot more than he receives is a key point: takers and matchers
also give in the context of networks, but they tend to give strategically, with an expected personal
return that exceeds or equals their contributions. When takers and matchers network, they tend to
focus on who can help them in the near future, and this dictates what, where, and how they give. Their
actions tend to exploit a common practice in nearly all societies around the world, in which people
typically subscribe to a norm of reciprocity: you scratch my back, I’ll scratch yours. If you help me,
I’m indebted to you, and I feel obligated to repay. According to the psychologist Robert Cialdini,
people can capitalize on this norm of reciprocity by giving what they want to receive. Instead of just
reactively doing favors for the people who have already helped them, takers and matchers often
proactively offer favors to people whose help they want in the future.* As networking guru Keith
Ferrazzi summarizes in Never Eat Alone, “It’s better to give before you receive.”
Ken Lay lived by this principle: he had a knack for doing unrequested favors so that important
people would feel compelled to respond in kind. When he was kissing up, he went out of his way to
rack up credits with powerful people who he could call in later. In 1994, George W. Bush was
running for governor of Texas. Bush was an underdog, but just in case, Lay made a donation of
$12,500, as did his wife. Once Bush was elected governor, Lay supported one of Bush’s literacy
initiatives and ended up writing him two dozen lobbying letters. According to one citizen watchdog
leader, Lay commanded “quid pro quo,” helping Bush so that Bush would support utility deregulation.
In one letter, Lay subtly hinted at his willingness to continue reciprocating if Bush helped to advance
his goals: “let me know what Enron can do to be helpful in not only passing electricity restructuring
legislation but also in pursuing the rest of your legislative agenda.”
Reciprocity is a powerful norm, but it comes with two downsides, both of which contribute to the
cautiousness with which many of us approach networking. The first downside is that people on the
receiving end often feel like they’re being manipulated. Dan Weinstein, a former Olympic speed
skater and current marketing consultant at Resource Systems Group, notes that “some of the bigger
management consulting firms own box seats at major sporting events. When these firms offer Red Sox
tickets to their clients, the clients know that they’re doing so, at least in part, with the hopes of getting
something in return.” When favors come with strings attached or implied, the interaction can leave a
bad taste, feeling more like a transaction than part of a meaningful relationship. Do you really care
about helping me, or are you just trying to create quid pro quo so that you can ask for a favor?
Apparently, Ken Lay made such an impression on George W. Bush. When Bush was running for
governor, he asked Lay to chair one of his finance campaigns. At the time, Lay didn’t think Bush had a
michael s
(Michael S)
#1