Think Again by Adam Grant (Review)
Over the past six months, it felt like nearly every reader in my circle was diving into Adam Grant’s Think Again. Concurrently, I kept seeing Grant’s tweets pop up in my Twitter feed and found further intrigued by his comments. It didn’t take long for me to adjust my reading list and dive into Think Again, and I’m immensely glad I did.
Think Again is not my typical reading genre, as it often groups with self-help or business-practices books. As I’ve mentioned before, I enjoy reading history because it provides insight into success and failures with context to consider what led to the eventual outcomes. I have often found that self-help books distill complex ideas into accessible advice and conclusions. This approach has deep value, but my preference is to chew on ideas until I have full command of the content. It likely reflects a flaw in myself that I too often fly through self-help books nodding in agreement but not wrestling with whether I am indeed applying the content in my own life. With Think Again, Adam Grant doesn’t let you off the hook so easily.
He asks questions repeatedly and encourages you to adopt a mindset of asking questions with genuine curiosity and an eagerness to assess and reassess what you think you know. As Grant notes early on in his book, he hopes everyone finishes Think Again with some element of rethinking. That outcome was true for me, and I fully endorse Grant’s book as a worthwhile and enjoyable read. As soon as I finished it, I bought a copy for my wife to read with my daughters, and they similarly enjoyed the book. It is thought-provoking, and I look forward to reading more of Grant’s work in the future.
Here are some of my observations from Think Again:
Grant is concerned that people too often fall into three categories of analysis: preacher, prosecutor, or politician. We preach to defend our core values, we prosecute those who disagree, and we politick to convince others of our position. Instead, we need to think like scientists and constantly reanalyze what we know. “When we are in scientist mode, we refuse to let our ideas become ideologies. We don’t start with answers or solutions, we lead with questions and puzzles…we dare to disagree with our own arguments.” We have to begin with the assumption we’re wrong.
Intellectual humility is the critical element to be a person who rethinks what we know. We need this trait to accelerate our rethinking.
Grant explored the ideas of Armchair Quarterback Syndrome juxtaposed with Imposter Syndrome. Armchair Quarterback Syndrome occurs when confidence exceeds competence—the classic guy watching games on TV who explains how the all-pro quarterback should have done X instead of O. Inversely, Imposter Syndrome occurs when a person feels their work accomplishments are undeserved and others will soon see “the imposter” as a fraud. The former is often spun as a positive and the latter as a negative: fake it ‘til you make it. The key to success may seem to be finding the sweet spot between the extremes. Yet there are great benefits to imposter syndrome, and it may be that the sensation of inadequacy leads to individual success. It can cause us to work harder, work smarter (rethinking strategy with a beginner’s mindset), and becoming better learners who seek knowledge from others.
This tension between Armchair Quarterback Syndrome and Imposter Syndrome served as a transition to the Dunning-Kruger Effect (“the less intelligent we are in a particular domain, the more we seem to overestimate our actual intelligence in that domain”). Grant’s description of the overconfidence that often accompanies ignorance reminded me of opening my mouth in class after reading Robert Burns’s “A Red, Red Rose” and claiming I could do better than such schmaltzy sentimentality. I’ve seldom had my cheeks burn so deeply with embarrassment.
Grant’s section on the joy of being wrong reminded me of a conversation I had years ago about religion. My friend complimented my lack of defensiveness during our disagreement. I commented that I approach conversations—particularly those on complex subjects—with a starting premise that I’m wrong. There is a large caveat to my starting point, because I make it a point to develop my reasons for holding a position. My friend asked whether this approach was really practical, but I have found it served me well to learn about other people’s beliefs.
His question had the effect of making me reassess my posture, but I came to conclude it was the most open-handed approach to listening well. The whole conversation came flooding back when covering this chapter. I particularly liked Journalist Katherine Schultz’s assessment: “Although small amounts of evidence are sufficient to make us draw conclusions, they are seldom enough to make us revise them.” We must keep questioning and seeking better evidence—particularly disconfirming evidence. Professional Forecaster, Jean-Pierre Beugoms, emphasizes truth over tribe: “if the evidence strongly suggests that my tribe is wrong on a particular issue, then so be it. I consider all of my opinions tentative. When the facts change, I change my opinions.” A person’s opinion should not be their identity.
Grant explored the distinction between relationship conflict and task conflict. The former is what most people think of when two people are fighting, the emotional disagreements. The latter, however, has great value. Task conflict is over ideas and opinions. Personal feuds are barriers to effective teams. High-performing teams focus on their tasks and use their conflicts to form more creative and more effective ideas. If there is no conflict, then apathy reigns and creativity withers. By building teams that can disagree without making it personal, the people around you can point out your blind spots (and everyone has blind spots).
When considering this meaningful value of task conflict, it is important to realize how easily task conflict can turn into relational conflict. Instead of asking people to explain why they hold a position, shift the focus to explaining how something will work. Asking “how?” causes rethinking, asking “why?” causes defensiveness.
Grant’s description of being a “logic bully” was convicting. As his former student put it, “you just overwhelm me with rational arguments, and I don’t agree with them. But I can’t fight back.” As Grant noted, this approach does not typically help convince a person to change their mind. On one hand, I think I approach changing others’ minds with humility and questions. Yet once I find information, I too often succumb to probing their weak points and attacking. This type of arguing is rarely successful. Instead, it is better to help others find their own motivation to change. Motivational interviewing is a more effective approach, which Grant helped explain.
During motivational interviewing, Grant emphasized the importance of being a guide. It is ineffective arguing someone to take a different position. Instead approach them as a journalist asking questions. Once the interviewee reaches a point of action, you need to summarize and help them set a plan. The summary helps ensure there isn’t misunderstanding, and the action steps help ensure the interviewee can execute the first steps toward accomplishing their goal.
This section reminded me of Thomas Jefferson’s letter to his nephew, Thomas Jefferson Randolph. This excerpt is one I have leaned on often in my life—especially during my lobbying days. Jefferson offered the following advice:
I have mentioned good humor as one of the preservatives of our peace & tranquility. It is among the most effectual, and its effect is so well imitated and aided artificially by politeness, that this also becomes an acquisition of first-rate value. In truth, politeness is artificial good humor, it covers the natural want of it, & ends by rendering habitual a substitute nearly equivalent to the real virtue. It is the practice of sacrificing to those whom we meet in society all the little conveniences & preferences which will gratify them, & deprive us of nothing, worth a moment’s consideration; it is the giving a pleasing & flattering turn to our expressions which will conciliate others, and make them pleased with us as well as themselves. How cheap a price for the good will of another! When this is in return for a rude thing said by another, it brings him to his senses, it mortifies & corrects him in the most salutary way, and places him at the feet of your good nature in the eyes of the company.
I must not omit the important one of never entering into dispute or argument with another. I never yet saw an instance of one of two disputants convincing the other by argument. I have seen many of their getting warm, becoming rude, & shooting one another. conviction is the effect of our own dispassionate reasoning, either in solitude, or weighing within ourselves dispassionately what we hear from others standing uncommitted in argument ourselves. It was one of the rules which above all others made Doctr. Franklin the most amiable of men in society, ‘never to contradict anybody.’ If he was urged to announce an opinion, he did it rather by asking questions, as if for information, or by suggesting doubts. When I hear another express an opinion, which is not mine, I say to myself, he has a right to his opinion, as I to mine; why should I question it.
Jefferson packed a great deal of wisdom in two short paragraphs, and it all seems to align with points that Grant makes quite convincingly.
One quote from Grant that I used to start a discussion with my daughters is, “Consider your emotions as a rough draft.” There is such simplicity in this statement yet such weight of value. It is not that we must live at stoics, suppressing all emotions. Emotions have deep value. But our first reaction is seldom our best reaction. Grant’s theme of thinking again applies just as meaningfully to our emotions—with more processing and more information, we can refine both what we think and feel.
Psychological Safety—fostering trust and openness without fear of reprisal—is the core element of a workplace with a learning culture. It is here where there is no self-censorship or hesitancy over raising fears and concerns. People must be comfortable deviating from orthodoxy. There should be no fear of asking questions or looking like a fool. Doubt and curiosity help advance organizations.
There were many more points that are worth exploring in Think Again, and I give it a full endorsement. My wife and daughters recently finished the book, and it was fun hearing them talk about what they learned—particularly the section on teaching students to question knowledge. Needless to say, I hope these ideas percolate with my girls for many years to come. They certainly will for me.
