Many years ago, as a 15 year old, I snuck into a tech and business event in San Francisco. My basketball-ready height masked my age at events like these. (Or if it didn’t, no one ever bothered to vocalize their suspicions.) I had my schtick down: When I arrived at 5pm at the downtown venue, I registered at the front desk, grabbed a name badge, and carefully dodged the various registrants who were standing around tall tables and munching on carrots and bell peppers, pretending to be enthralled in conversation.

Once I found my way to the bathroom, I entered a stall, closed the door, and sat on the toilet. And then I waited, staring straight ahead at the beige bathroom stall door. Nature did not call but that wasn’t the point. The clock was ticking — that was the point. After about 15 minutes the networking happy hour ended, the main stage speaker took the microphone, and it was time for me to symbolically flush the non-soiled toilet and re-join the gathering to watch the speaker. At the conclusion of the formal programming, I bee-lined my way out of the hotel before the networking started up again.

I was a young entrepreneur; I had read the various business books that extolled the virtues of networking. But converting knowledge into action in this area required having answers to questions that made my palms sweaty:

Doesn’t everyone already know each other? What if the other person finds me boring? Would I ask for their contact information afterwards and if so, would that be awkward? What are you supposed to talk about?

Fast forward 21 years later and I now work in an industry (venture capital) that has me hosting and attending these sorts of previously-terrifying gatherings all the time. And I don’t mind it. (You can learn almost anything!)

Now, despite my current comfort with unstructured networking hours, I far prefer more structured gatherings. Assigned seating. Assigned speaking roles. Small groups. I tend to avoid unstructured events.

But…if you find yourself attending an unstructured networking cocktail hour, here are some tips:

Barge into existing conversations. It may seem easier to approach someone who isn’t speaking to anyone. But actually, a person who’s staring down at their phone may actually be on their phone for good reason. Instead: join a group of two already in conversation. Odds are you are not interrupting two best friends talking about confidential topics.

When you approach and turn a twosome into a threesome, just use a simple opening line: “Hey how’s it going? I’m Ben” and extend your hand for a handshake. (Until such time as we ban the stupid norm of handshakes and replace with the Japanese bow…) Another terrific thing to say, per Nick Gray, right as you join a larger conversation: “Please continue.” This avoids the awkward round of introductions among people who’ve already introduced themselves to each other. As a late joiner, you can just vibe in when the time is right.

As you’re talking to someone, don’t scan the horizon looking for someone else more interesting. Give the person you’re talking to your full attention. It’s dreadful to be on the receiving end of someone whose eyes are darting around. Let’s all treat others the way we want to be treated: give the person you’re talking to at a cocktail party your full attention. Take comfort in the knowledge that you know how to extract yourself from a conversation if necessary.

Don’t get trapped in one conversation the whole time. A common fail mode in a cocktail party setting is being unable to extract yourself in order to go talk to someone else. It can be intimidating to break off from your conversation partner and wade into the unknown until you’re find a new mate.

If you’re in a two-person conversation (you and the other person), there are two basic/obvious options: “I’m going to get a drink, it was really nice talking to you” and “I’m going to head to the restroom, it was really nice talking to you.” The advanced option? Don’t make up an excuse. Just say, “It was great talking to you. I’m sure I’ll see you around.” Put out your hand, and then wander off. And pray you don’t bump into the person a minute later before having paired off again.

If you’re in a three (or more) person conversation, it’s easier. Say: “Excuse me for one sec” and then step out and walk decisively away without waiting for a formal reply, and let the two others carry on.

If you see someone standing on their own, awkwardly, while you are in conversation with someone, invite them into your conversation. Literally gesture to the person, waving them into the circle, with the phrase, “Come join us.” If you want to be especially generous, quickly bring the new person up to speed on the conversation: “We were just talking about this book Jane read on the history of Morocco…” And if you’re feeling particularly assertive, try to keep the conversation going versus reverting into self-introductions from everyone standing in the circle – which will inevitably be repetitive for most of the people standing there.

Now… when you’re in the conversation itself:

Don’t saturate a conversation with overexplaining and drawn-out stories. Smart people are sometimes tempted to unload all their special knowledge and insight and clever explanations into a conversation. They flood the zone.

Speaking too much is the obvious sin. Don’t do that. Don’t speak for more than 60-90 seconds straight. This is true in almost any meeting context but especially true at cocktail parties or happy hours.

One version of this sin is more subtle because it’s an activity that’s otherwise lauded by experts: storytelling! Stories are indeed a great way of making a point. At their best, nothing beats them. The issue is, as Sasha Chapin has pointed out, storytelling in casual work conversation can also go horribly wrong. A story that isn’t tight quickly becomes a worse situation than boring non-story delivery of facts.

Drawn-out, painful stories are torturous in any social interaction. But it’s especially problematic in cocktail parties where there’s faster cadence expected.

Bottom Line: Try to avoid unstructured cocktail parties when you can, but if you must, consider these techniques to make your time more worthwhile. 1) Barge into existing conversations and say “Please continue” 2) Don’t scan the horizon while talking to the person, 3) Don’t get trapped in one convo, excuse yourself to “get a drink” and go find others to mingle with 4) Invite lonely stragglers into your conversation, 5) Don’t saturate cocktail conversation with overexplaining and drawn-out stories.

And if you’re hosting your own cocktail party, Nick’s book will show you how. If you want deeper frameworks on how to build your network, The Startup of You shows how.

On a collaborative team, a great employee should be a team player: helping their colleagues hit *their* individual priorities. Do favors for them, offer feedback when asked, build social capital. Whatever it takes to help the company succeed.

As Fred Kofman says, “Your job is not your job. Your job is to help the overall team/company win.” Fred’s diagnosis of much organizational dysfunction is that employees become too absorbed by their individual project list and lose sight of the common goal. His canonical example is that of a defender on a soccer team who thinks his job is to defend (not let the other team score goals) while his actual goal should be for his team to win the game.

Yet a star employee must *also* stay focused on nailing their own individual projects and KPIs. It’s possible to be too much of a team player — to the detriment of your own performance, which ultimately impacts the org and the workflows you’re responsible for. In this circumstance, you don’t set enough boundaries and you get “used” by your co-workers.

Senior, savvy operators tend to have good intuition on how to balance their time between “my KPIs” vs. “others’ KPIs”. When I’ve hired more senior people, their savviness at navigating the favor-trading dynamics that circulate inside every team — their understanding that they need to be a team player and also they need to nail their own task list and not get taken advantage of — sets them apart from less experienced folks.

It’s one of the things you pay for when hiring someone senior onto a team.

How easy is it to separate your experience of someone’s style from their substance?

By “style” I mean a person’s personality, work habits, communication patterns, and so on.

By “substance” I mean a person’s overall effectiveness, performance, intelligence, etc. in the workplace.

Many professionals assert they can work with and respect the performance of people across the stylistic range — so long as the person is substantive. Successful people who work in teams like to think of themselves as flexible on style, inflexible on substance.

But how often is this actually true in the workplace?

In my experience, our rank of people’s substance is heavily influenced by the other person’s style. People, me included, tend to think more highly of the substance of professionals who happen to share our style. In this way, style similarity or differences hinders our ability to think clearly and fairly about the substance of the people we work with.

Why, then, do so many people think they’re immune from this bias?

Because in the vast majority of interactions at work, there’s a clear power dynamic that resolves stylistic tension. If you’re the person with more power, it’s easy to steamroll over the stylistic annoyances of the other person, or to force the person to adapt stylistically to you. For example, if an ultra detail oriented boss is supervising a not-so-detail-oriented subordinate, it’s obvious who in that relationship is going to have to make some stylistic tweaks to their behavior in order for the collaboration to work. The natural difference here eases tension, clears the mind, and allows for an accurate rating of substance.

However, in situations where two people are closer to power parity, style matters hugely because the stylistic differences do not get easily resolved. Which creates friction. Which affects your ability to fairly evaluate the person’s substance. Persistent stylistic friction clouds one’s judgment of substance; it makes it harder to see reality clearly.

Take two people of roughly equivalent power levels. Both super substantive in their own respect. But introduce a significant stylistic difference: perhaps one person is extremely humble by nature and the other person extremely boastful. Or perhaps one person is highly collaborative by nature and the other person highly decisive, even authoritarian. Both are substantive, successful, thriving professionals. But these stylistic differences, impossible to fully resolve due to their equal power positions, will cause them to likely rate each other differently on substance — more so than what would be advised based on an objective, god-view of the “facts” about each person’s performance.

Bottom Line: You can more easily separate stylistic differences from an objective evaluation of substance when you’re relating to someone meaningfully more or less powerful than you. When you’re relating to a peer or partner, stylistic differences metastasize and infect your ability to objectively and honestly evaluate substance. So, be really attentive to how stylistic differences may be affecting your view of true peers.

In these Covid times, we’ve all done more video chatting than ever before. Some people love it. Some people are missing in-person.

What are the personality, cognitive, and communication style correlates with someone preferring Zoom/video chat meetings to in-person or vice versa? This is not an exhaustive list of pros and cons of video vs. in-person companies or meetings, but specific to the individual personalities of people who seem to prefer one over the other.

People who prefer in-person meetings tend to be:

Extroverts. Extroverts report that socializing makes them feel *more* energized, whereas introverts get their batteries drained and then need solitude to recharge. In-person involves more energy transfer between and among the people involved than on a Zoom — either energy addition (for extroverts) or energy subtraction. (H/t ToddS)

Kinesthetically communicative. With physical touch, hugs, slaps, rubs, hand gestures, etc.

Good at reading other people’s body language. These tend to be people with a high degree of emotional intelligence which helps them read eye contact, body gestures, and “wayfind” in a conversation through subtle cues.

Physically attractive. And aware of how to use attractiveness in the room.

More “quiet” or reserved in meetings. Because they can get shouted over or interrupted more easily on videochat. In-person it’s easier for them to signal to a group, “I want to speak.”

“Personal” relationship builders who don’t always prioritize short term efficiency. These people bridge to personal topics as well as professional ones in meetings, broaching intimate topics based on the trust that’s usually only established in-person. Even if it means going off the agenda and “wasting” time to explore these areas.

People who prefer video chat meetings tend to be:

Introverts. For the inverse of the extravert reason above. Energy transfer in-person is more draining.

Focused on efficiency and productivity in meetings in the micro sense. There’s less random chit chat on a Zoom. On a video meeting, you get straight to the agenda, usually. If you don’t love small talk, you get to skip a lot of that when doing a video meeting. Easy to do a 15 minute video call; not easy to do a 15 minute coffee meeting.

Focused on efficiency and productivity in the macro sense. You can do 12 back to back Zooms in one day. No travel time. No walking between meetings. No down time. All meetings, all the time.

People who are socially awkward in person. Or people with body image issues. If your physical appearance isn’t a plus — Zoom helps level the playing field.

People with high computer cognitive skills and good multitasking skills. They can multitask while on a Zoom and get more done. In-person, you can more easily be “caught” and seen as rude if you’re multi-tasking in a meeting.

The fourth dimension

Myself? I find a lot to like about both videochat and in person. One of our founders recently said: In-person for innovation; remote for iteration. I think that captures it well: In-person seems superior for the most complex conversations. Videochat works well for small iterations on top of an agreed plan.

I don’t think we’ll ever go back to having as many in-person meetings as we did pre-Covid, given how effective Zoom is in so many use cases.

Nonetheless, I suspect that when people return to sustained in-person interaction, post-Covid, they’ll realize just how unsatisfying so many of their video calls are in comparison. They’ll remember the richness of being in person. I’ve certainly experienced this in the outdoor meeting I’ve participated in since Covid.

I’m reminded of a Po Bronson line: “Physical affection is a fourth dimension: You can get through life without ever knowing that it’s there, but it sure adds something to the experience when you open up to it.”

When it’s time to perform — on stage, in the boardroom, in the bedroom — confidence is the essential mental component to strong execution. Even solo activities, like being able to fall asleep at night, are aided by self-confidence (“I’m a good sleeper!”).

The substantive way to increase your confidence in life, it seems, is to rack up a series of wins. Experience = confidence (usually). Of course, accumulating experience takes time. And if you’re always pushing yourself into uncomfortably new situations, as high performers tend to do, you often won’t have experience to draw upon that can fuel your inner confidence.

So there are a range of more “shallow” ways to increase confidence — tips and tricks and hacks that function like a placebo effect for confidence. Things that make you feel more confident, even if, as a matter of fact, there’s no substantive reason why the hack should increase your real-world performance.

Superstitious routines come to mind. The baseball player who taps on home plate with his bat a few times, in exactly the same way, before each pitch. The public speaker who re-ties her shoes in exactly the same way just before going on stage.

Following a “meaningless” routine can calm the mind, which creates the space for quiet confidence to flood the mind. A hyperactive mind is rarely a confident one.

Luxury goods can generate a confidence placebo effect; in fact, I’d argue this placebo constitutes most of their practical value. Wearing a fancy watch, toting a fancy hand bag. These are things that do nothing to actually help you perform in the business room but they can lend a certain swagger to the person showing off the luxury good. Even if no one sees the watch on your arm the entire meeting — so there’s no external signaling going on, which is the other function to a luxury good — if you feel like a baller while wearing it, you’ll feel more confident doing whatever you’re doing.

Enhancements to physical appearance serve as a confidence placebo. Women wear makeup and sometimes don’t look any better physically as a result but feel more attractive, which results in confidence, and confidence tends to be a very attractive trait. Mission accomplished, if indirectly.

A subtle example of a confidence placebo in business is how we rely upon and invoke studies and data. Many studies about business and success are bullshit. You know how it goes: Seven graduate students hung out in a lab and one person who was wearing a brown jacket decided he didn’t want to buy the product and so now we must conclude a Very Important Fact about all humans who wear brown jackets. We cling to studies and reports and data in part because it gives us confidence in the intuitions we want to act on. It gives us confidence in the anecdotes we’ve heard and want to synthesize. When you’re a CEO and about to walk on stage in front of your employees to announce a pivotal decision, knowing that “some researchers at Yale” support some element of your decision gives you the confidence to announce, with a clear voice, your point of view. Confidence aids decisiveness.

If you’ve read a bestselling book about sleep that’s replete with faulty studies but your knowledge of the “studies” enhances your confidence about sleep — I’ve perfectly calibrated the temperature of the room to what studies say is the optimal temperature! — then you may well sleep better. And if the “data” behind power posing is questionable, well, hey, if power posing gives you greater confidence before performing, it’s probably still worth it.

There can be nothing wrong with placebos. And remember that — studies show! — that even if you’re aware that you’re benefitting from a placebo effect, it doesn’t fully negate the effect. So knowing which placebos help with confidence in-the-moment can give any performer an edge.

###

When confidence is helpful for performance is an interesting nuance here. Obviously at the time of performance you want to be confident. But if you’re too confident too far ahead of the time of performance it might lead you to under prepare beforehand. Suppose you need to deliver a key presentation at work in a month’s time. If you’re too confident, too early on, you might not spend the cycles preparing that actually will improve performance substantively. Confidence placebos are ideal just before the time of performance.

#

(Hat tip to Russ Roberts, Steve Dodson, and Andy McKenzie for conversations that inspired and helped make up this post.)