Bookkeeping is my day job. It pays the bills while I build something I’ve been envisioning for 17 years. In 2007, I started a blog called The Introverted Entrepreneur. The idea got a strong positive response, but I ran out of gas too soon. In a sense, I’m picking up where I left off back in the day. I’m developing a facilitated 90-day program based on what I call Micronetworking. In my program, three entrepreneurs develop the habit of taking increasingly meaningful actions to help each other’s businesses.
The whole premise of my Micronetworking platform hinges on the idea that small groups are more effective than big ones, specifically for the purpose of creating deep connections and building trust. Big groups are good places to make initial contacts, but they don’t really do anything to help you build on those connections. This seems counterintuitive and flies in the face of our “bigger is better” culture. Some of the best meetings I’ve ever had have been the smallest ones. However, making a group small does not in itself guarantee good performance. Any group, large or small, can devolve into a social hour without the proper accountability structure.
My approach starts with groups of exactly three members. I’ll get into the specific reasons for the number three in future posts, but for this article, I want to illustrate two ways that the model could work.
In-Person Networking Approach
The triad decides they will “divide and conquer.” They will meet with every member of their networking group. For easy math, let’s say there are 30 members in the large group (27 outside the triad). They meet to decide how to divide up the list into 9 members each, based on their individual businesses and relationships. Member A, the real estate agent, decides to meet with the mortgage lender, life insurance rep, and HVAC repair company the first week. Member B, the business broker picks the CPA, the financial advisor, and the commercial real estate agent. Member C, the construction company owner, decides to meet with the landscaper, the electrical/plumbing contractor, and the painter. They all define the specific outcome they want to achieve from the meeting. The following week, they all reconvene and identify whether or not the stated outcomes were achieved.
The second week, the triad concludes that the meetings were mostly unproductive and didn’t increase the likelihood of referral business. The triad changes course. Rather than assigning nine more meetings, they select one specific business objective: helping Member B find owners who may be preparing to sell their companies within the next few years. Member B explains what makes an owner a strong prospective client.
The triad then realizes that their efforts could be more effective if they all ask for referrals to the same kind of person. They identify three specific client profiles that all 3 could serve: a business owner close to retirement, a business owner about to relocate, and a business owner going through a divorce. Each transition can create overlapping needs. The business broker can help the owner evaluate or sell the company. The real estate agent can help with relocation, downsizing, or the sale of a marital home. The residential contractor can prepare a home for sale, renovate a new one, or modify an existing home for the owner’s next stage of life. The triad now has a shared referral target: business owners navigating major life transitions.
So, does the strategy work? Maybe, maybe not. That isn’t the point. The point of the story is that the triad can continue to test and execute their approach week after week. They might not meet with success until the fourth iteration or the 17th. But a triad, by combining their expertise and reach, can learn faster than three individual business owners acting in isolation.
Social Media Approach
Just to give one other alternate scenario, let’s say all 3 members want to increase their online visibility on LinkedIn. They post on LinkedIn every day. At the outset, the content quality is poor and no one reads any of it. All 3 members commit to commenting on each other’s LinkedIn posts every day for a week. By the end of day 5, all 3 members are beginning to get new ideas on how to make their content better. This is a very simple way for 3 people to help each other. The following week, the members could decide to coordinate their efforts and create LinkedIn posts on the same topic.
On the surface, it seems there’s little in common between their audiences. After some discussion, they decide to write a series of posts about work-life integration for business owners. They each write a post a day for 5 days, and they all comment on each other’s posts. The process could continue indefinitely, with the group discussing how to make the effort more effective each week. Each week, they evaluate what generated meaningful engagement and adjust the next experiment. Over time, they improve their content, strengthen their consistency, and extend one another’s reach.
These are just two examples of how Micronetworking can function. A triad could create an educational seminar, host quarterly dinner events, set up a booth at a golf tournament, or any number of other tactics. Everything begins with trust, and a mutual understanding of what will move all of the members forward.
The scenarios above illustrate just two ways to apply micronetworking and would not make sense for every group. The challenge is identifying the true needs and priorities of each member, then carefully selecting actions that are of mutual relevance and benefit. Figuring out a strategy isn’t the challenge. Any group of people will eventually find the right mix if they stay consistent in their execution long enough. Self-led groups typically don’t stay consistent. The members are all equals, and no one is incentivized to focus purely on the needs of the group. All members are focused on their individual needs and will try to pull the group in the direction they want it to go.
The business model I am building is based on facilitation. A facilitator is not a member of the group. A facilitator doesn’t get any airtime to talk about their own challenges. A facilitator is paid to facilitate. If a facilitator does a great job, the group members might stop and say, “Wait a minute… how do we help YOU?” The facilitator is duty-bound to decline any such offer, and remind the group that the facilitator’s needs are met by virtue of getting paid. The facilitator’s only job is to make sure the group stays focused, stays on track, remembers their reason for coming together as a group, and remains accountable for what they executed or didn’t. A self-led group feels entitled to go off script if they feel like it. A paid facilitator doesn’t feel the same entitlement to deviate from facilitating; it’s their job.
That is what members are paying for: not another source of ideas, but a structure that turns ideas into action. Over 90 days, the triad develops a repeated practice: identify what matters, choose a coordinated action, follow through, evaluate the results, and adjust. Not every experiment will work. Success means the members become increasingly effective at putting their trust and relationships to work for one another.
