Jason Stoddard wrote an incredible response to my "Brain Picking is Rude" post that he's agreed to allow me to share as a Guest Blog Post. This is lengthy, but well worth taking the time to read it especially if you liked my original post: *** Great catalyst to conversation, Scott. This subject is especially close to home with me. As an entrepreneur and advertising and marketing professional specializing in core creative, concept development, strategy planning, and execution there is not a day that goes by that I am not directly or indirectly asked by another for a brain-picking session (over lunch, of course.) I am nothing more than my ideas, and in this, my ideas are my product. Whether it is my Mother calling me about constituent-facing communication for her for-benefit, or a passing stranger indirectly asking me to identify choke-points in their marketing programs off the cuff at a happy hour or mixer, the presumptuous nature of the engagement is generally the same. Michelle Greer and I enjoyed a "conversation" on this very topic over gchat on the heels of her  Austin-American Statesman Texas Social Media award. Michelle receives more "brain-picking opportunities" than most because of the nature of her professional service and her willingness to serve others. Though Michelle's challenges vary slightly from mine, there are like variables. Most of us are compelled to share and pay it forward, but unless we do so on our terms, we ultimately devalue our positioning and standing in the marketplace of ideas.   Scott correctly identified the three major challenges individuals and organizations experience when informally engaging or being engaged others: reciprocity in idea diffusion, monetizing time management with organization, and encoding and decoding of concepts, values and general communication. Though I am currently working through my own personal solution, here are the solutions I've established to date: Resolution: It is absolutely essential that the "pickee" set the expectation, process and methodology for exchange the very minute the "picker" attempts to engage. Establishing an expectation is essentially setting the protocols of the engagement. If said expectation (read: protocol(s)) is disagreeable to the "picker", the "picker" has the opportunity to voluntarily disengage; whereas if said expectation (read: protocol(s)) is agreeable, they have voluntarily chosen to engage on the "pickee's" terms. 1) Reciprocity, Idea Diffusion Do a quick search on a "for benefit organizations' blogs". Many of these blogs/web sites contain a "wish list" established by the executive director of the organization to further embolden the organization's tangible, albeit them ancillary, goals and objectives. Not unlike these "for benefit" organizations, individuals that are often queried or asked for a brain-picking session would do well to establish their own "wish list" so that when asked for an engagement (read: brain picking session) the "pickee" can direct the "picker"to the list and establish early-on that in order to maintain a reciprocal relationship of honor, respect and value, there IS something of very little monetary value that the "picker" can do, or procure in order to respect the time, energy and value of the "pickee." The onus is then on the "picker" to follow-thru, post-engagement should they choose to engage in the first place. In the event the "picker" does not follow through, the "pickee" should physically and/or mentally note that the "pickee" is probably not a good match for future engagement. 2) Monetizing time management with organization We've all heard the cliche "time is money" and it is cliche because it is true. Streamline your in-person meetings, and in doing so, you'll be closer to both effective communication and monetizing the investment of time. Enclosed below is a pre-meeting survey. It is nothing earth shattering, but  based on my resolution and belief that it is the "pickee's" responsibility to set the expectation, I usually include said survey when I am asked to meet with anyone, including my Mom. Is it too formal? Maybe. But at the same time, in a market that is often laid back to a fault (Austin), it sets the expectation that if you want to meet with me, I am going to do everything I can to make sure we get things done--indirectly communicating that "getting things done" is my top priority. *** Please let me know the following (in advance) so that we maximize our time together. meeting time: place: expected length of meeting? Is the meeting related to [picker's business], [pickee's and picker's mutual interest], [pickee's personal interest] and/or all/both? top level motivation to meet with me, specifically: top level expectation to meet with me, specifically: Have you met with anyone else for the same reasons? If so, did it fall-short, meet or exceed your expectation? What did you learn? What three things do you hope to garner from this meeting (please be very granular)? 1. 2. 3. Of these three things, what is immediately actionable? Would it be beneficial to develop a brief "first thought, best thought" action plan before closing our in-person collaboration? do any of the action items require additional resources (people, finance, time, assets, collateral, etc.)? If so, identify and explain as best you can. Looking forward to collaborating. [Salutation], *** By way of anecdote: someone recently requested a lunch and responded to this survey with "The time it takes to complete this survey would be better served just talking about it over lunch." I responded, "The pre-meeting is more important than the meeting itself as it gives us the chance to get to the core of the matter. I want to assist you the best way I know how. This is a first step to that end. Please complete the survey." The same person cancelled the lunch meeting later the same day. I gained no less than 1.5 hours in my week and garnered a closer understanding of the person making the request: they did not voluntarily commit to the protocol/expectation I set, so chances are we were not a good match for exchange/collaboration. Additionally, it should be noted that the head can endure no more than the ass can support. In other words, a typical lunch is an hour, and of this hour, you should spend no more than 30 minutes discussing the impetus to meet in the first place. Based on the response to the survey, you can usually determine if 30 minutes is enough time to accomplish the objective of the in-person. The balance of the time should be spent enjoying the meal, enjoying the company, discovering other points of mutual interest, and allowing your mind and body to decompress and reflect; afterall, immediately after lunch is the second-best of time of day to maximize productivity, second only to early morning (or late evening for you night owls).  If more time is warranted, pre-schedule that time before the initial meeting for a second and possibly a third meeting. Again, the onus is on the "pickee" to set and reset the expectation. You'll find the initial get-together a good indicator of the balance of time needed to satisfy the motivations and expectations of both parties. Engage accordingly. 3) Encoding and Decoding of concepts, values and general communication. Goethe said "...reading any translation is like viewing a tapestry from behind." In college, Dr.Cheatam (the then Dean of the Dept. of Communications at Texas State) taught me that all communication is nothing more than encoding and decoding; the closer the respective people are to like terms and definitions, the more effective the exchange. Do you remember playing a game of "grapevine" as a kid? Your experience with the game is not unlike any communication--as statements of fact go through multiple exchanges and iterations, there is a greater probability the communication (idea diffusion) will be compromised. And even in a one-to-one conversation there is a very good chance communication can and will be misinterpreted. For this reason, regardless of the communication medium, it is a best practice to consistently ask the person you're communicating with "do I understand you correctly, when you say...?" Diversity of perspective is valuable, but it should be conceded that in all expressive and receptive communication, the same diversity can be a liability because respective people come from their own culture, history, bias, profession, trade, nomenclature, priority, value system, style, etc. when engaging other people. If social life (and subsequently idea diffusion) is all about understanding and being understood, you'll find you're better able to distill any conversation down to a very precise premise and actionable plan if you consistently define both the protocols of the engagement and the language employed to diffuse those ideas into dynamic  action. I hope this is helpful. Should you have questions, concerns, need clarification or simply wish to say hello and extend the conversation, don't hesitate to reach out. Towards understanding and being understood, Jason Stoddard Stagira, Inc., Founder mobile:         512.925.0921 email:          stoddard.jason@gmail.com on LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/jasonbstoddard on Twitter:  http://twitter.com/jasonstoddard

After a recent speech I gave someone came up to me afterward and thanked me for showing her that she'd been way overdoing the bonding and rapport step in her sales process. I didn't talk about this specifically, but can understand how she came to this conclusion and she made a great point. In Sales 101 you learn that one of the early steps in the sales process is "Bonding and Rapport." The classic example is that upon entering your prospect's office you notice something personal; a fish on the wall, a diploma, certain pictures, or some other type of award. You then begin a small talk conversation based on this artifact in their office. I often find that in a networking context this can be even more pronounced as some will dig for some type of mutual interest or other connection point. This Bonding and Rapport process isn't bad in and of itself, however I think it's frequently overdone. You're certainly not setting yourself apart by trying to start some type of conversation about the most obvious item in someone's office... just like nearly every other sales schmuck has before you. It also eats into the valuable and limited time you have to be face to face with someone regardless of the context. I'm sure there are many who will disagree with me on this point, but I find that it's better to just get to the point. Whether this is a sales call or just a follow-up face to face meeting with someone you met at a Chamber of Commerce event you're both there for a reason. Personally I think you build more credibility and value by quickly getting down to business and the purpose of your getting together. Certainly I'm not suggesting that you never work on the personal side of a relationship with someone. I am suggesting that you not lead with it. If you're doing a good job of listening and asking good questions you'll probably find some connection points over the course of your conversation anyway. Besides there's often a good window of time once the business portion of your meeting is wrapped up for you to talk about the family or a favorite hobby. If you've read a book or two on networking you've almost certainly read that: "People do business with people the know, like and trust." I think this is what leads people to spend so much time trying to get other people to like them. While I generally agree with this statement I also believe that unless you can provide a viable solution very few people are going to do business with you just because they like you. What do you think? Am I overreacting? Where does bonding and rapport and the development of a more personal relationship enter into your sales process? Happy Networking! Scott Ingram NetworkInAustin.com