I think I’ve been approaching coffee chats all wrong. I’ve been going in thinking that more chats equals better odds. But I’m realizing that’s probably not true. Some people are actually going to actively help you, and others are just going to be polite and then you never hear from them again.
The thing is, I can’t figure out in the moment whether I’m talking to someone who’s actually invested in helping or just someone who has a nice afternoon to spare. Like, how do you even know? Do they offer to help unprompted? Do they ask specific follow-up questions? Do they actually remember details about what you said?
I’ve also noticed that sometimes the person who seems less impressive in the moment is actually way more helpful than the big-name person. The MD might give generic advice while some associate actually does something concrete—sends a resume to someone, asks you a real question about what you’re looking for, sets up another meeting.
I’m wondering if there’s a filter I’m supposed to be using. Like, which people are actually worth staying in touch with versus which ones I’ve just met once and that’s it? Because I’m not trying to spam my entire network with emails, but I also don’t want to miss someone who could actually be a real sponsor or mentor.
How do you know the difference?
simple: if they offer you something concrete (intro, resource, timeline), theyre worth following up with. if they just say “stay in touch,” thats code for “i was polite but youre not memorable enough.” the real ones make you feel like youre now part of something. if you feel like your chat ended and thats just… it? move on.
also, track who actually responds to your follow-up email. fast response? they care. no response? they don’t. its brutal but accurate. dont waste energy trying to turn someone into a sponsor who isnt already interested.
wait so even just feeling a vibe matters?? i thought it was more like… objective?? this makes me feel better lol
should i like track this stuff or is that too intense?? i just want to remember ppl but not be weird abt it
the fast response thing is SO true. game changer.
You’re identifying something critical about network quality over network size. In my experience, genuine mentorship relationships are typically identified by four indicators. First, the person asks follow-up questions—not to gather information, but to understand your thinking. Second, they offer specific suggestions or connections rather than generic encouragement. Third, they remember conversation details in subsequent interactions without you reminding them. Fourth, and most tellingly, they suggest a next meeting before you leave, with a specific purpose. The ones who don’t do these things? They’re acquaintances, which isn’t valueless, but it’s different. For cultivation purposes, I’d suggest distinguishing between “network” (people you check in with annually) and “mentors” (people you actually ask advice of and maintain active dialogue with). You’ll have many network contacts. You’ll have perhaps three to five genuine mentors. Focus your emotional energy on identifying and nurturing that latter group.
Now I keep a simple note in my phone after each chat—like, “offered to intro me to recruiting” or “generic advice, probably not pursuing further.” Sounds kinda cold, but it helps me decide where to invest follow-up energy. It’s not rude, it’s just realistic about who’s actually in your corner.
From surveying analysts on mentor relationships, concrete follow-up action items emerged from approximately 30% of coffee chats, but these accounted for 75% of subsequent career progression outcomes. The key differentiator between high-value and low-value connections was whether the mentor proactively suggested a next meeting (indicating genuine investment) versus leaving next steps to the junior person. Additionally, seniority had minimal correlation with impact—mid-level people with active roles in their firm’s recruiting or operations often provided more valuable ongoing support than senior figures with limited bandwidth. Response time to follow-up communications also served as a strong predictor: average response time under 24 hours correlated with 4x higher probability of ongoing mentoring relationship.