Application to Retain Networking Follow Up
Any networking follow up performed twice may not be removed merely because the original problem has disappeared.
SEARCH HISTORY RECOVERED: Networking Follow Up: September 2021
The following represents a partial reconstruction of the decision process that preceded the final post.
12:04 how to follow up after a networking call without sounding like you followed a template
12:06 examples of genuine networking follow up messages
12:09 is it weird to mention something specific they said
12:11 networking follow up subject lines that don't sound like networking
12:14 how long is too long for a networking message
12:17 professional tone vs casual tone linkedin message
12:21 [draft deleted]
12:23 [draft deleted]
12:26 networking follow up message examples 2021
Observation
Someone sends a polite follow-up after a networking call and edits it until no sentence admits that networking occurred. The call was forty minutes. Both parties knew it was a networking call before, during, and after it took place. The message will be received by a person who is also aware it is a networking follow-up and who is also searching for ways to make their responses sound less like replies to networking follow-ups.
The post aims to sound personal, but the most personal moments often arrive in the most familiar script.
Consequence One
Someone repeats networking follow up to avoid one uncertain moment. The uncertain moment is whether the recipient will interpret the message as transactional. The message is transactional. Editing it does not change this. It changes the evidence available to the recipient, who is conducting their own search history for how to reply in a way that does not sound like a reply to a networking message.
Consequence Two
A second person copies the behavior because the repetition looks like experience. The message that reads like it was not written from a template was written from a template that had been successfully revised to not read like one. This is the template that gets copied.
Consequence Three
The group eventually treats the copied behavior as the safest available standard. Any behavior that prevents embarrassment once must survive until formally challenged. Networking follow up has not been formally challenged. The challenge would require admitting that the original embarrassment was performance.
Absurd Rule in Force
The follow-up must contain at least one sentence that appears to recall a specific detail from the call, even if the detail is a question the other person asked that could have been asked by anyone. The sentence is the evidence of attention. The evidence of attention is the point.
Contradiction
The call happened because both people wanted something. The message happened because one of them wanted to remain legible as someone who does not visibly want things. These goals do not resolve. The search history is the record of the attempt.