Supercommunicators: How to Unlock the Secret Language of Connection

About the Author

“Charles Duhigg is a Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative journalist and the author of The Power of Habit and Smarter Faster Better. A graduate of Harvard Business School and Yale College, he has won the National Academies of Science, National Journalism, and George Polk awards. He writes for The New Yorker and other publications, was previously a senior editor at The New York Times, and occasionally hosts the podcast How to!” 

Sources: and “About the Author” section of the book 

Our one-sentence summary

Effective communication involves recognizing and aligning with three distinct conversation types – practical, emotional, and social – and mastering corresponding skills to foster deeper connections and achieve greater success. 

Publisher’s Summary

“We all know people who seem capable of connecting with almost anyone. They’re the ones we love talking to, who we turn to for advice, who hear what we’re trying to say and make us feel seen.

What did they know about conversation that makes them so special?

Supercommunicators, Charles Duhigg argues, understand that whenever we speak, we’re actually participating in one of three conversations: practical (What’s this really about?), emotional (How do we feel?), and social (Who are we?). If you don’t know what kind of conversation you’re having, connection is hard.

Skilled communicators know the importance of recognizing – and then matching – each kind of conversation, and how to hear the complex emotions, subtle negotiations, and hidden beliefs that color so much of what we say and how we listen. Our experiences, our values, our emotional lives, and how we see ourselves and others shape every discussion, from who will pick up the kids to how we want to be treated at work.

With his trademark clarity and storytelling, Duhigg shows readers how to recognize these three conversations – and teaches us the skills we need to navigate them more successfully.

Communication is a superpower. By bringing readers into jury deliberations and fraught CIA recruitments, into Netflix’s company-wide conversations about equity and the writer’s room of The Big Bang Theory, Duhigg uncovers why some people are able to make themselves heard –and to hear others—so clearly. We learn how to identify and leverage the hidden layers that lurk beneath every conversation.

In the end, we learn a simple but powerful lesson: With the right tools, we can connect with anyone.”

Source: Book Jacket 

Detailed Summary 

Prologue

• Felix Sigala, a senior regional administrator and FBI negotiator, was known for being approachable. In 2014, a group of scientists sought him out to study communication.
• After demonstrating his communication skills in a conversation with the researchers, Felix explained that effective communication hinges on creating a comfortable environment. This involves active listening, asking questions, and reciprocating.
• He also argued that anyone can learn to be a supercommunicator.
• After studying the research on effective communication, Duhigg argues that the most important goal of any conversation is to connect.
• Most discussions fall under one of the following three categories:
  • What’s this really about?
  • How do I feel?
  • Who are we?
• Understanding these categories enhances communication, as it’s hard to connect when we’re not engaging in the same type of conversation. Each conversation type also demands different skills.
• Every meaningful conversation involves a myriad of small choices. This book will help you spot these key moments and turn them into opportunities to understand others, learn about them, and connect. 

PART I – THE THREE KINDS OF CONVERSATION 

Chapter 1: The Matching Principle

• Jim Lawler was a CIA agent sent to Europe to build rapport with foreign bureaucrats, embassy attachés, and similar sources, but he struggled to make connections.
  • While attempting to recruit spies, he approached a Middle Eastern woman named Yasmin, who worked in her country’s foreign ministry. When he revealed his CIA identity and asked her to join, she became frightened and declined.
• Research suggests conversations can lead to neurological synchronization—an alignment of our brains and bodies that influences how we talk, listen, and think.
  • This was first observed among musicians who would breathe at the same rate and have matching heart rhythms while playing together. Studies have shown that it also occurs when people cooperate to solve puzzles, tap fingers, or share stories.
  • The more people’s brains synchronize, the better they understand each other.
  • Researchers have also identified individuals particularly skilled at synchronization, making them more adept at connecting with others.
• Through a series of experiments, researchers found that group synchronization is driven by individuals who encourage others to speak up, ask questions, and keep conversations flowing. These individuals were referred to as high centrality participants.
  • These participants asked 10-20 times more questions than others and frequently adapted their communication to match their companions, not just by mirroring but by nudging people to listen better or explain themselves more clearly.
  • Researchers also discovered that high centrality participants tended to have larger social networks and were more likely to hold positions of authority.
• There are three types of conversations: practical decision-making, emotional, and identity-related. Each is linked to specific questions: What’s this really about? How do we feel? Who are we? Each of these engages different mindsets and mental processes.
  • The decision-making mindset activates when addressing practical matters, such as analyzing plans. It involves the brain’s frontal control network, which oversees intellectual discussions, negotiations, and setting conversation goals.
  • The emotional mindset draws on neural structures like the nucleus accumbens, amygdala, and hippocampus, which influence our beliefs, emotions, and memories. This mindset is typically engaged when telling or listening to stories.
  • The social mindset is triggered during discussions about relationships, social identity, and how others perceive us. Topics like family, religion, gossip, and politics stimulate this mindset, accounting for 70% of our conversations.
• Each type of conversation and its corresponding mindset are interconnected; all three can occur within a single conversation. Miscommunication happens when these mindsets are misaligned between people at any given time.
• Supercommunicators recognize the type of conversation and adjust to match it. To do this, they genuinely understand what others are feeling, what they want, or who they are. They also know how to share their own thoughts and emotions to create alignment.
• Lawler convinced Yasmin to join him for dinner. He realized he hadn’t shown her he was truly listening and understanding. He opened up and admitted he wasn’t sure he was cut out for the CIA. Yasmin agreed to help and worked as a spy for years.
  • She later explained that during the dinner, when she realized they were both uncertain about themselves, she felt safe with him—and that’s what made her trust him enough to join the CIA.
  • Lawler eventually became one of the CIA’s most successful recruiters, and his techniques have become part of the CIA training program.

A Guide to Using These Ideas, Part I

• Supercommunicators care about the conversation type as much as the discussion topics. They ask questions about feelings and backgrounds and are comfortable talking about their own emotions, vulnerabilities, experiences, and identities.
• The four basic rules that create a learning conversation are:

1. Pay attention to what kind of conversation is occurring.
2. Share your goals, and ask what others are seeking.
3. Ask about others’ feelings, and share your own.
4. Explore if identities are important to the discussion.

• Rules 2 to 4 will be covered in the next chapters. The first rule is based on the matching principle. To connect, we need to be having the same type of conversation.
• In any conversation, your first goal is to identify the conversation type you want to have and learn to look for clues about what the other party wants.
  • Before initiating, take a moment to formulate what you hope to say and how.
  • During the conversation, observe the other person and determine if they’re emotional, practical-minded, or talking about people or social topics. We all send clues as we speak about what conversation we want.
  • If appropriate, you can also ask what the goal of the conversation is.
• A learning conversation is about understanding what’s inside other people’s heads. It nudges us to pay attention, listen closely, and speak openly. The goal is to elicit alignment by revealing ways to connect. 

PART II – THE WHAT’S THIS REALLY ABOUT? CONVERSATION 

Chapter 2: Every Conversation Is a Negotiation

• The jury in Leroy Reed’s case had to determine if he, as a felon, was guilty of illegally possessing a firearm. His attorney argued for acquittal, citing his second grade reading level and below-average intelligence. The prosecutor countered that ignorance of the law is not a valid defense.
• Voice tone, body language, sighs, and laughs indicate the type of conversation we’re having. Even though this is an unconscious process, the conversation won’t begin until all parties agree on how the dialogue should proceed.
• Quiet negotiation is a nuanced exchange, subtly determining which topics will be addressed in depth and which will be avoided. We first determine what everyone wants from the conversation. Then, we figure out the rules for how we will communicate.
  • Rather than explicitly stating rules, we often experiment with expressions and reactions and pay attention to other people’s responses.
• The What’s This Really About? conversation stems from decision-making. These decisions can be about the conversation itself, practicality, judgment, or choice analysis.
  • Underneath the decisions, there often lie other choices. For instance, someone can wonder, “Can we remain amicable if we disagree?” Understanding both levels of the decisions will allow for a more meaningful dialogue.
• An oncologist specializing in prostate cancer struggled to communicate with patients. While surgery or radiation could eliminate cancer, it risked incontinence or impotence. Another option is active surveillance, but it poses the threat of metastasis.
  • Believing patients sought medical advice, he often recommended surveillance, citing studies showing similar outcomes between invasive treatments and monitoring. Yet, most patients still opted for surgery.
  • Realizing his communication was ineffective, he consulted a negotiation expert from Harvard Business School. He learned he wasn’t asking patients what mattered most to them, assuming they wanted his advice.
  • By asking open-ended questions, he discovered many patients prioritized their family’s emotional well-being over concerns about mortality or pain. Six months after adopting this approach, the number of surgery choices dropped by 30%.
• As the jury deliberated, three favored Reed’s conviction, two leaned toward acquittal, and seven were undecided. John Boly, a supercommunicator, started asking questions to understand what each member hoped to achieve from the discussion.
• Interest-based bargaining is a negotiation approach that seeks win-win solutions through creativity. It is often achieved through open-ended questioning. The goal is to understand how others see the world and what they value.
• The What’s this really about? conversation is a form of negotiation, but the aim isn’t to win—it’s to help people agree on the topics to discuss and how decisions will be made.
• As the jury’s discussions grew heated, Boly shifted focus to guiding their collective decision-making. He imagined aloud what it might be like to be Reed, prompting them to consider an alternative—one in which Reed didn’t even realize a gun needed bullets.
• The What’s This Really About? conversation has two forms:
  • Logic of costs and benefits: Logical reasoning and practical calculations.
  • Logic of similarities: Feelings and compassion are more persuasive than facts.
• To decide how to make choices together, we need to discern whether we’re having a rational or empathetic conversation. Will we make decisions through analysis and reason or compassion and storytelling?
• At this point, most of the jury was leaning toward acquitting Reed. But a fireman insisted on his guilt. So, Boly asked open-ended questions, encouraging the fireman to express his views.
  • The fireman revealed that his priority was public safety, believing that a guilty verdict would uphold the law and prevent others from using the case as an excuse to break the law in the future.
  • Noticing the fireman’s use of the logic of costs and benefits mindset, Boly suggested that acquitting Reed could enhance public safety by signaling that the justice system should focus on true criminals rather than individuals like Reed.
  • The jury ultimately delivered a verdict of not guilty.

A Guide to Using These Ideas, Part II

• A 2018 Harvard study found that while cues indicating someone wants to change the subject are usually clear, they are often overlooked in the flow of conversation.
• The second rule of effective conversation is sharing your goals and asking what others seek. This involves preparing beforehand, asking questions, observing cues during the conversation, and experimenting by introducing new topics.
  • To prepare, identify two topics you want to discuss, one key point you hope to make, and one question you will ask.
• To start conversations, ask open-ended questions. Focus on asking about beliefs or values (e.g., How did you decide to become a…?), judgment (Are you glad you…?), and experiences (What was it like to…?).
• You’ll also need to rely on cues to understand others’ needs and goals.
  • If the person leans in, makes eye contact, smiles, gives verbal feedback, or interrupts, they’re likely interested.
  • If they become quiet, avoid eye contact, or fail to contribute their thoughts, they’re likely not engaged. We often mistake these signs for active listening, but they typically indicate a lack of interest.
• Interest-based bargaining suggests creativity and experimentation with new topics or approaches can move the conversation forward.
  • If someone shares a story or joke, they may be using a logic of similarities mindset, signaling a need to discuss feelings and empathy.
  • If they focus on plans, decisions, or option evaluation, they’re likely in a practical mindset, weighing costs and benefits.
  • If they try to change the subject, allow them to do so and listen.
• To experiment, introduce humor, ask unexpected questions, or present new ideas. Try interrupting and refraining from interruptions—if they engage after the interruption, they’re likely interested in making decisions together.

PART III – THE HOW DO WE FEEL? CONVERSATION 

Chapter 3: The Listening Cure

• Psychologist Nicholas Epley is an expert in why we mishear others. His main argument is that we don’t need to be taught how to listen; if we’re interested, we’ll listen.
  • The key is to have interesting conversations about intimate things and emotions.
• To start a How Do We Feel? conversation, we need to ask questions that don’t appear emotional but that make emotions easier to acknowledge.
  • Emotions are always present, influencing what we say and hear. Sometimes, we notice them and let them pass unacknowledged. But this is a mistake because it leaves everyone less satisfied and the conversation incomplete.
• Epley’s experiences as a rebellious teenager led him to become a psychologist, particularly inspired by the effectiveness of his therapist’s questioning techniques.
  • When he was in college, perspective-taking was thought to be key to effective communication. But Epley realized that, if anything, his parents’ perspective-taking only showed how little they understood him.
  • His parents failed to connect because they didn’t understand how he felt; they never asked. And even if they did, Epley wouldn’t have known what to say.
  • His counselor’s questions elicited emotional replies that helped him process the answers. For example, she would ask, “Is this who you want to be?” and then she would listen. That inspired Epley to listen to her in return.
• In 1995, researchers Elaine and Arthur Aron performed an experiment involving 36 increasingly personal questions. By taking turns answering each question, participants developed a deep level of connection in a short amount of time.
  • Many participants developed lasting friendships and even romantic relationships. In some cases, participants reported feeling closer to the study partner than to their own family members.
  • These questions were designed to prompt people to describe beliefs, values, or meaningful experiences, which tended to result in emotional replies. They also prompted people to reveal vulnerabilities.
• Humans tend to synchronize their emotions with those expressed around them. This can be deliberate, but most often, it’s an automatic and unconscious response. Emotional contagion explains why emotions are key in dialogue.
  • Vulnerability is key within this process, as we become more prone to emotional contagion when we hear someone else express what they find meaningful.
  • As evidenced by the Arons’ study, reciprocity is also critical. If you ask someone how they’re feeling and they respond with vulnerability, you have to reveal your own emotions to connect.
• A 2016 Harvard study found that successful conversations with new acquaintances focus on uncovering their needs, goals, beliefs, and emotions.
  • Fact-based questions can lead to dead ends and discourage vulnerability. Instead, rely on questions that invite others to share their preferences, beliefs, and values, such as asking about their favorite college memories.
  • This study also found that follow-up questions signal that you’re listening and want to know more. They make reciprocity easier. For example, “Your favorite part of college was ultimate frisbee? Me too! Do you still love to play?”
• To ask emotional questions, ask people how they feel about something, and then follow up with questions that reveal how you feel.

Chapter 4: How Do You Hear Emotions No One Says Aloud?

• The creators of The Big Bang Theorystruggled to shoot the pilot because the main characters, who were supposed to have difficulty understanding emotions, needed a script that still conveyed feelings.
  • Real-life communication relies on nonlinguistic emotional expressions—we show emotions rather than explicitly stating them. So, having a character say, “I’m mad you’re late for dinner!” wouldn’t work, as people typically convey feelings through tone, gestures, and facial expressions instead of direct statements.
• Some people have a natural talent for detecting emotions even when unspoken, but anyone can develop this skill by learning to identify nonverbal cues.
• In the 1980s, NASA psychiatrist Terrence McGuire believed screening candidates for emotional intelligence (EQ) was essential. However, he faced the challenge of lacking the tools to measure EQ and predict how candidates would handle tense moments on a six-month space mission.
  • He reviewed 20 years of audio recordings from past applicants’ interviews to address this issue, searching for signals that set high-EQ individuals apart. One key finding involved how candidates laughed.
• Meanwhile, psychologist Robert Provine was researching when and why people laugh. To his surprise, people did not laugh out of humor but out of playfulness, in-group feeling, and positive emotional tone in an attempt to mark a social encounter.
• Laughter is contagious. If two people conversing are not laughing at the same level (one chuckles while the other belly laughs), they’re not connecting.
• To assess emotions, focus on mood (positive or negative) and energy level. Someone who’s frowning (negative) and quiet (low energy) is likely sad. If they’re frowning and shouting (high energy), they’re likely angry, signaling that we should be careful.
• After reviewing Provine’s research, McGuire revisited the recordings and noticed that the best astronauts were those whose laughter matched his energy levels.
  • He recalled feeling listened to and understood by those astronauts as well. He later identified other emotional expressions with similar patterns.
  • From then on, to screen excelling candidates, McGuire intentionally expressed more emotion during interviews and asked candidates to describe their emotional lives, varying his moods and energy to see if applicants matched him.
• It’s often difficult to tell how other people are feeling. They might not know. Instead of trying to decipher the emotion, pay attention to their mood and energy level and match them. If matching will exacerbate tensions (anger), acknowledge how they feel.
  • Make it obvious that you’re trying to understand their emotions. When you express emotions yourself, notice how they respond. Are they trying to align?
• The creators of The Big Bang Theory introduced Penny, a light and bubbly character, to contrast emotions and solve the issues they encountered the first time they filmed the pilot. They also wanted the characters to show a desire for connection.
  • This led to the iconic scene where Sheldon, Leonard, and Penny repeatedly say “hi” with the same energy and tone. The actors excelled at aligning their energy and mood, even when their characters were emotionally awkward.
  • The second attempt at the pilot was so successful that The Big Bang Theory became one of the longest-running programs in history.

Chapter 5: Connecting Amid Conflict

• Conflict is a key part of life. But it’s possible to connect even amidst it.
• After surviving a school shooting in 1982 and facing a false alarm involving her child in 2014, Melanie Jeffcoat became a prominent advocate for gun control. She was invited to Washington, D.C., as part of an experiment.
  • Researchers were trying to determine if people from opposing sides of the gun control debate could have a civil conversation. She accepted.
  • The experiment organizers were guided by the work of Sheila Heen, a Harvard Law School professor who studied connection in conflict. Her key argument was that in conflict, the goal is not victory but understanding why the conflict exists.
• Conflicts have at least two layers: the surface and an underlying emotional conflict. Recognizing the role of emotions helps realize the real reasons for the disagreement.
  • Conflicts persist because individuals often avoid admitting vulnerabilities, making it difficult to have a How Do We Feel?
• As part of the gun discussion experiment, participants underwent a training program where they were taught how to listen. They were told to ask questions, repeat what they heard in their own words, and ask if they understood correctly.
  • This technique is called looping for understanding. It helps different people find emotional similarities, fostering a sense of understanding and trust.
• After having emotional dialogues, the researchers told participants to discuss guns. They were asked to share a story explaining why this issue was important to them. The only rule was that these needed to be personal experiences.
  • Listeners could ask questions, but they had to be open-ended and curious. Rebuttals disguised as inquiries were not allowed.
• Jeffcoat listened as a woman shared how a relative had been assaulted in her home, prompting her to buy a gun and learn to shoot for protection and peace of mind. She explained that, to her, the gun control discourse feels like she’s being told she’ll have to go back to being powerless as a woman living alone.
  • Jeffcoat heard other stories and later told Duhigg that she was impressed. She felt naive and admitted she had assumed that all gun owners were angry men.
• Research that recorded more than one thousand fights from married couples found that listening and proving that they are listening is the minimum for a marriage to work.
• Further research investigated differences between happy and unhappy couples. Their two hypotheses were: (1) Unhappy couples were fighting over more serious concerns (money, health, drug use), and (2) Happy couples were better at resolving issues. The evidence did not support either of these hypotheses.
  • The differences lay in how couples approached control. In unhappy couples’ conflicts, at least one person attempts to control the other. Happy couples control themselves, the environment, or the conflict’s boundaries.
  • For example, happy couples would not let one particular fight spill into other fights –a pattern called kitchen sinking, which is particularly destructive.
• Looping for understanding is powerful because when you prove to someone you’re listening, you give them control of the conversation.
• The gun discussion experiment involved applying the learned techniques in a larger, online setting, engaging people who hadn’t been part of the in-person experience.
  • Unfortunately, the online discussion wasn’t as amicable. In particular, people were trying to control others and telling them how they should feel.
• Jon Godfrey, a former police officer and gun owner, contacted Jeffcoat after noticing she was being shouted down in online discussions. They devised a plan for her to post about red flag laws to spark debate.
  • Godfrey was ready and the first to respond. He wrote that, as a police officer and gun rights supporter, there had been times when he wished he could confiscate firearms from those posing a danger to themselves or others.
  • This helped shape the discussion and establish conflict boundaries.
  • Jeffcoat began using the looping technique as participants shared their own stories, encouraging more people to join the conversation. Many admitted that the gun debate is a particularly complicated one.
• The gun discussion was a six-week experiment that yielded mixed results; not everyone managed to connect in the online forum, but some found genuine connections, making the experience profound. Jeffcoat and Godfrey still talk to each other every few months.

A Guide to Using These Ideas, Part III

• Emotions are always present. If we fail to acknowledge them, they become obstacles to meaningful connections. The third rule of a learning conversation is to ask about others’ feelings and share your own.
• At any point in a conversation, someone will signal or speak about their feelings. That’s when discussions turn to How Do We Feel?
• To connect, ask deep questions that create intimacy. Ask people about their beliefs, values, feelings, or experiences in ways that help people reveal vulnerabilities.
  • Deep questions can be light (“What would your perfect day look like?”) or heavy (“What do you regret the most?”). But they don’t always have to appear deep. For example, “Why do you look so happy today?”
• Almost every question can be reframed into a deep question by understanding that:
  • Deep questions focus on beliefs, values, or experiences and not facts.
  • Deep questions ask people to talk about how they Use the word “feel” or name emotions in your questions. For example, “Did it make you happy when…?” and “How would you feel if…?”
  • Deep questions should share or reveal something about ourselves as we ask.
• After asking, pay close attention to how others reply: look for sounds, gestures, tone and cadence, body language, and expressions that provide further information.
• Pay attention to mood and energy to differentiate between emotions that can manifest similarly (e.g., sadness, frustration, and anger). Then, match or acknowledge to show you’re listening.
• Looping for understanding requires asking questions and understanding the person’s answer. Then, repeat what you heard in your own words. Ask if you got it right and continue until everyone agrees they’ve understood.
• Reciprocal vulnerability requires looping for understanding, looking for what the other person needs (empathy, advice, etc.), asking permission (“Would it be okay if I told you…?”), and giving something in return (“I’m so happy for you!”).
  • This is not about matching vulnerabilities but about being emotionally available.
• Amid conflict, listening is key. Start by acknowledging understanding through looping. Then, find points of agreement. Finally, temper your claims and speak about specific experiences. Avoid broad generalities such as, “You never…”.
• In online settings, we lack the emotional information we’d receive in in-person interactions. To make these types of conversations better:
  • Overemphasize politeness.
  • Underemphasize sarcasm.
  • Express more gratitude, deference, greetings, apologies, and hedges.
  • Avoid criticism in public forums.

PART IV – THE WHO ARE WE? CONVERSATION

Chapter 6: Our Social Identities Shape our Worlds

• Psychologists found that anti-vaxxers’ opposition didn’t stem from political ideology, as they’d suspected. Instead, it was related to their social identities: the part of the self-image formed based on group membership and value.
• Social identities influence our thoughts and behaviors. These stem from race, religion, ethnicity, political ideology, profession, and many other intersectional factors.
• Social identities help us understand, relate to, and bond with others, but they can often lead to in-group favoritism, resulting in prejudice and stereotypes.
• The desire for belonging is the core of the Who Are We? conversation type. When we gossip, talk about our social linkages – such as our alma maters, or signal an affiliation, such as being a Knicks fan, we engage in this type of conversation.
• Jay Rosenbloom had become accustomed to parents objecting to vaccinations and engaging in discussions regarding injection risks. He was also familiar with studies that found that anti-vaxxers considered themselves smarter than average.
  • Studies found anti-vaxxers had formed a group identity that gave them psychological benefits related to self-esteem and a sense of community.
  • Meanwhile, Rosenbloom recognized that doctors were also forming a tribe of their own: that of proud experts.
  • Both groups thought of themselves as better than the other and forgot about other similarities (such as living in the same neighborhood).
  • Rosenbloom knew he needed to connect with his patients to have a Who Are We? conversation. But then, the COVID-19 pandemic and vaccination efforts started, and this issue grew more radical.
• Studies show that minority groups and women often underperform on exams due to the psychological impact of stereotypes such as “women aren’t good at math.” When reminded of these stereotypes, even by the mere presence of an out-group, they experience anxiety and self-doubt, which hinders performance.
  • This is the stereotype threat effect. Researcher Claude Steel argues, “It is the mere existence of the stereotype about their identity’s abilities in society that threatens them, and not necessarily the racism of the people around them.”
• Steele found that when participants were told a test was designed to avoid gender differences or Black students were told it wasn’t measuring intellectual ability, the stereotype threat diminished, leading to improved performance.
• In another experiment, participants were told that men typically performed better than women on the GRE. They were then divided into three groups: Group 1 went straight to the exam, group 2 briefly described themselves beforehand, and group 3 wrote extensively about themselves.
  • In groups 1 and 2, men outperformed women, but in group 3, scores showed no significant difference, showing that self-affirmation can reduce the impact of stereotype threats.
• Rosenbloom, aware of these studies, sought to counter the “physician knows best” stereotype. He recognized that wearing a white coat reinforced his role as “the doctor,” but as a parent, he understood the fear of making health decisions for children.
• To have effective Who Are We? conversations, we need to invite people to talk about their backgrounds, allegiances, communities, and how these have shaped them.
• The contact hypothesis suggests that bringing people with clashing social identities together under specific conditions can help overcome differences.
  • A study in Qaraqosh, Iraq, explored the potential of intergroup contact through football (soccer) to promote social cohesion in post-ISIS Iraq, where ISIS Muslims had persecuted Christians, resulting in distrust and resentment among groups.
  • Researchers randomly assigned some teams to be all-Christian and others to be mixed with Muslim players. They found that playing on mixed teams eventually increased tolerance and acceptance, both on and off the field.
• In the Qaraqosh study, the three main decisions that were made are the core of successful Who Are We? These are:
  • People were reminded of other identities.
  • Social identities that put one group above another were put aside. Everyone was at the same level.
  • New in-groups or social identities were formed.
• Motivational interviewing, developed in the 1980s for alcohol addiction treatment, helps individuals express their own reasons for and against change without direct persuasion attempts. Instead, the counselor asks questions and guides the conversation.
  • Rosenbloom used this technique with patients to discuss the COVID-19 vaccine, focusing on shared social identities (e.g., him being a parent) rather than his role as the expert.
  • He asked questions, shared his thoughts, and relied on a shared identity to avoid triggering resistance. This allowed patients to reflect, and many would change their minds on their own without direct persuasion.

Chapter 7: How Do We Make the Hardest Conversations Safer?

• Despite increased efforts to address racism, sexism, and misconduct in the workplace, many programs have proven ineffective. Research shows that diversity training often fails to change biased behaviors, with race and gender stereotypes becoming more salient and the positive effects fading within a day or two.
• To confront inequality and prejudice, efforts have to go beyond afternoon training sessions and hiring diversity consultants. However, people feel uncomfortable having “Who Are We?” conversations when the topic is so sensitive.
• In 2018, the Chief Communications Officer (CCO) of Netflix held a meeting in which he said the n-word while attempting to draw a comparison between its impact on the Black community and the use of the word “retarded” when describing children with cognitive differences.
  • To many, that moment started a civil war within the company. Many employees argued that the company had ignored racial tensions for years. Some defended the company, saying it wasn’t racism but rather oversensitivity by some groups.
  • Meanwhile, some employees struggled to let go of what the CCO had said, even though he had repeatedly apologized. The controversy got bigger over time.
  • Eventually, the CCO was fired, and the CEO apologized for not acting sooner. While some employees were happy, others resented it. So Netflix hired Vernā Myers to oversee the equity and diversity division.
• Aside from blunt offense, a study found that conversations often become difficult when a speaker assigns the listener to a group they don’t identify with or denies them membership in a group where they feel they belong.
  • Listeners get defensive because they perceive that their identity is attacked. This is known as identity threat and is deeply corrosive to communication.
• The mere possibility of identity threat keeps people from having Who Are We? Research suggests that both white and black people feel anxious about saying something racist unintentionally and damaging friendships.
• In a study, researchers asked friends of different races to discuss race. Before having the discussion, one of two groups was asked to consider the benefits of the conversation, potential barriers, and ways to overcome those barriers. This group had deeper, longer, and more effective conversations.
  • Preparing and anticipating obstacles can help us have better conversations.
  • Feeling anxious about a conversation doesn’t mean you should avoid it; instead, remind yourself and others of its importance.
  • How this conversation will occur is just as important as what is said. Studies suggest that the person with the least power should begin the conversation.
• Some questions to ask yourself before the conversation begins include:
  • How do you hope things will unfold?
  • How will this conversation start?
  • What obstacles might emerge?
  • When the obstacles appear, what is your plan to overcome them?
  • What are the benefits of this dialogue?
• When having a difficult conversation, it’s particularly important to avoid generalizations and speak about your experiences and emotions instead.
  • Identity threats usually emerge because we generalize and accidentally lump people into groups (“Lawyers are all dishonest”) or assign people unwanted traits (“Everyone who voted for that guy is a racist”).
  • When we describe our own experiences, feelings, and reactions, we reveal who we are and neutralize identity threats.
• At Netflix, the culture had been about quick action and open dialogue since the 1990s, but discussions around prejudice and bias were challenging. To address this, Myers introduced guidelines to help facilitate these conversations effectively:
  • When discussing issues of identity, no one is allowed to blame, shame, or attack.
  • It’s okay to ask questions if they’re asked in good faith and will help everyone succeed.
  • Connect with compassion and courage.
  • Embrace the discomfort in the sense of not knowing.
  • Don’t generalize.
  • Speak about your own views and experiences.
  • When a colleague talks about something painful, listen. Don’t diminish.
• Myers often started her workshops by emphasizing her own mistakes. Then, she would ask participants to describe a time they had felt excluded.
• At Netflix, Myers’ prolonged intervention and clear guidance made discussing prejudice and bias more manageable. Within three years of her hiring, Netflix outpaced most major firms in Silicon Valley and Hollywood in hiring underrepresented groups.

A Guide to Using These Ideas, Part IV

• Challenging conversations can arise around issues like prejudice and bias, employee performance problems, giving difficult feedback, delivering personal ultimatums, or addressing concerns like a friend drinking too much.
• These conversations are difficult because they threaten people’s sense of self. However, they are often unavoidable.
• The fourth rule of a learning conversation is to explore if identities are important to the discussion. This rule tells us to consider our actions before discussion, at the beginning of the discussion, and as the discussion unfolds.

1. Before the discussion, ask yourself:
   • What do you hope to accomplish? Have clear goals for the discussion.
   • How will this conversation start? What is needed to draw everyone in?
   • What obstacles may emerge? Will people get angry?
   • When obstacles appear, what’s the plan?
   • What are the benefits of having this dialogue?
2. At the beginning of the discussion,

• • Establish clear guidelines or norms for the conversation.
  • Draw out everyone’s goals.
  • Acknowledge and keep acknowledging that discomfort is natural but useful.

3. As the discussion unfolds,

• • Draw out multiple identities.
  • Work to ensure everyone is on equal footing
  • Acknowledge people’s experiences and look for genuine similarities.
  • Manage your environment.