Previous Next

In Chapter 8, Grant addresses the difficulty of communicating constructively about controversial topics in a culture of divided opinions and suggests that nuance and complexity encourage rethinking. Research shows that people tend to simplify any complex continuum into two categories. This is called binary bias. However, simply knowing that another side of an issue exists isn’t enough to convince people to rethink their opinions. Instead, they are more likely to rethink when presented with the full complexity of an issue. For example, while Al Gore’s 2006 film on climate change, An Inconvenient Truth, strikes a chord with progressives, it mostly fails to move conservatives, says Grant. Grant posits that this is because Gore falls into binary bias, creating an us-versus-them mentality that discourages rethinking. According to Grant, studies suggest that when experts express doubt, they become more persuasive. Nuance and complexity encourage rethinking, while binary bias discourages it.

Read more about Main Idea #3: How communities benefit by rethinking.

In the second half of Chapter 8, Grant explores why the common advice to take the other side’s perspective in a polarized discussion often fails to lead to any rethinking. Experiments show that asking people to reflect on the intentions of their political opposites makes them less receptive to reconsidering their own attitudes. This is because people have limited understanding of others’ points of view. Talking directly to people about the complexity of their views is a better way to inspire rethinking than trying to guess at people’s perspectives. Grant notes that difficult conversations are more productive when they are emotionally complex, that is, when the speakers feel a range of emotions, from anxiety to curiosity to excitement, rather than getting stuck in one negative emotion, like anger. In other words, people should try to avoid binary bias not just with issues but also with their emotions. As Grant points out, humans, like polarizing issues, rarely come in binaries. 

In Chapter 9, Grant explores why (and how) people should be encouraged to rethink what they have been taught. He uses the example of Erin McCarthy, a teacher who gives her students a textbook from 1940. The class is shocked by errors and omissions—and they begin to question their current textbooks and rethink what they are taught in general. In another experiment, the same teacher writes a textbook chapter exclusively from the point of view of women and girls, causing some male students to realize what it is like to be marginalized. At the college level, too, learning by rethinking has been proven to be more effective than passive learning. Grant suggests that educators make rethinking central to their teaching, concluding that rethinking cycles are fostered by instilling intellectual humility, disseminating doubt, and cultivating curiosity.  

In Chapter 10, Grant explores how an organization’s culture determines its ability to rethink. He turns to NASA for examples of how the failure to rethink can be catastrophic, citing the 1986 explosion of the space shuttle Challenger, among other incidents. In a culture that prioritizes performance and outcomes, like NASA’s, past successes feed into an overconfidence cycle that ultimately hurts the organization. As a result of an organization’s false confidence, workers don’t question their practices and procedures. Afraid of being punished for mistakes, Grant suggests, they instead become focused on protecting their careers. Ultimately, Grant argues, performance cultures are detrimental to change and progress, leaving organizations unable to adapt to new challenges.

A culture of learning, Grant argues, is more conducive to an organization’s long-term success than a performance culture. Cultures of learning thrive under a combination of psychological safety and accountability. Psychological safety allows workers to speak up without the fear of reprisal. If mistakes are seen as opportunities to learn, workers are more willing to take risks. While helping the Gates Foundation to build psychological safety, Grant encouraged senior management, including Melinda Gates, to show vulnerability by reading criticisms from staff surveys aloud. A demonstration of confident humility by leadership, Grant found, can give workers the freedom and courage to speak up.

But psychological safety should also be balanced by accountability, Grant believes. Instead of focusing exclusively on outcomes accountability, he advocates creating process accountability, in which decision processes are evaluated. A good decision process is one that goes deep and involves rethinking, while a shallow decision process is undesirable, even if it has a positive outcome. When process accountability and psychological safety are combined, people feel free to experiment. Grant concludes that people and organizations should constantly rethink past routines with a view to revising them. Rather than prioritizing static best practices, organizations should focus on continually evolving better practices.

Previous section Part 2: Chapters 5-7 Next section Part 4: Chapter 11

Take a Study Break