This episode is brought to you by Stanford University. As a Think Fast, Talk Smart listener, you're familiar with the techniques and tactics developed by my Stanford colleagues that can help you be a better strategic communicator, like the work of Jamil Zaki on how to be more trusted and connected.

Stanford professors helped shape the world in many other ways. Recently, my colleagues in the Stanford School of Engineering hosted a course for the U.S. Air Force Test Pilot School. Over 10 days, Stanford professors taught the pilots some of the latest AI and robotics technologies that they could apply to their careers designing, testing, and evaluating military aircraft and satellites.

Partnerships like this one with the Air Force are part of everyday research activities at Stanford. If you'd like to stay informed on world-changing research like this, sign up for Stanford Report at connect.stanford.edu. What is better than getting advice and guidance on how to hone and develop your communication skills from one amazing, knowledgeable guest? Getting that advice and guidance from four amazing guests.

My name is Matt Abrahams, and I teach strategic communication at Stanford Graduate School of Business. Welcome to Think Fast, Talk Smart, the podcast.

In our first episode, I asked Naomi Bagdonis, Christian Wheeler, Nir Halevi, and Alison Kluger questions about their research, along with their thoughts on AI and advice they had for all the leaders in the room. In this episode, you'll hear our panelists answer questions from our audience. So let's get started and let's get learning.

Before we get started, I wanted to invite you to join us for our upcoming Think Fast, Talk Smart live event on April 14th and 15th. I'll be giving a brief talk and then I'll take questions live. If you want to appear on video with me, consider joining premium. Register at faster smarter dot IO slash live. That's faster smarter dot IO slash live. I look forward to celebrating with you at one or both of these events.

Well, you've heard from all of us answering questions that I came up with. I would love to hear us answer questions that you come up with. So, hello everyone. My name is Carlos Santos. I'm coming from Ecuador. My question is a regard to all of you, especially to Professor Wheeler, that talk about feeling uncomfortable. How can we be a bridge in these times of political polarization? And I think I really want your opinion on this.

So how can we embrace that discomfort and perhaps be a bridge to others while there's discomfort at play? Yeah, well, I think the key is to recognize that we as individuals are more than we as our group identities, first of all.

You know, I feel there's a large tendency to dismiss or disqualify or whatever the word is, individuals based on our assumptions about what they're like, based on some conclusions we've drawn about their identities. And what the research shows is that when we treat people as a group identity, we are often not receptive to them in the same way that we are if we treat them as individuals.

And if you can bring that same level of curiosity that you do to other aspects of your life to this individual,

wonder why they feel that way, ask them questions rather than try to persuade them, engage with them with a goal of understanding rather than with the goal of changing them, to share your personal experiences rather than to share your political talking points. Research shows these are all behaviors that are associated with what researchers call receptiveness. This type of receptive dialogue makes people more receptive to us as well. And so it often begins with our approach towards engaging with that individual.

And I think to add to that, also acknowledging that this is uncomfortable is something that can be helpful too. I feel like it's so easy for many of us, it is for me, to in my mind hold caricatures of the other side, whatever that side may be. But yet I love interacting with people from the other side as individuals when I encounter them. To be able to put those

those categories aside and just engage with that person. But one of the things that we talk about in my class is letting go of things. We often think about things that we want to add, and this may be a context in which we think about things we might add to make that conversation go better. I would think of things that you can remove.

And one of those things you can remove are your expectations about what this other person is going to be like and these stories that you may have about why they are the way you quote unquote think that they are. And when you can put those expectations aside and engage with true curiosity, I think you're going to have a very different set of interactions.

Thank you. Nir, did you have something to add? Yeah, I would just add that in these conflict situations or potential conflict situations, it's important to rely on a diverse toolbox, right? So we can rely on our identities, our emotions, our relationships, our strategies, our ethics, right? And if we just focus on one kind of bucket in this kind of

five types of tools, then it's going to be quite challenging for us, right? And sometimes it's about building a relationship, right? So we're going with relationships. Sometimes it's about bringing fairness to the front, right? So ethics. Sometimes it's about planning ahead, right? That would be a strategy. Or regulating emotions. So if we have a diverse toolbox, I feel like we can rely on a lot of different tools to make it work. And that's important to keep in mind. Very nice. Thank you. So you rely on lots of different techniques. Excellent. Thank you. Other questions?

Adrienne Wyke, I'm currently living in Salt Lake City, Utah. I want to kind of focus on reputation or maybe perception and how you can help to differentiate when it's you or the room you're in. So for example, it's taken me a long time to gain confidence and be direct and create this light that I don't necessarily want to dim. So how do you figure that out when it's me or the room I'm in?

That's a great question. It's a different perspective than I'm used to. Usually I just research before I go into any room because it's a higher stakes. My goal is always how am I going to serve my audience, right? So it's not really about my light yet. What I really want to do is serve their needs and make sure they feel satisfied.

So that will be research, asking about the demographic, and even asking what are the expectations. I also will check in when I'm in a room speaking. I'll say, is that clear? Is there a question? And I love when I get pushback on something that someone doesn't agree on or that they're confused. And in the moment, I'll be like, you know what? I don't know the answer to that, but...

I'm going to research it and add it to my next presentation. So there's a bit of transparency. I think this also dovetails again into what Christian says. I don't go in hoping to be perfect. I go in hoping to make others feel better and enlighten them in some way, but also while being real. Because if I go in somewhere and think, oh, my reputation is riding on this and I better be perfect and I can't slip up.

I'm not going to do a great job. I'm going to go in prepared. I'm going to go in knowing what I need to deliver, and I'm just going to let it happen. So I think don't overthink it, right? Know your worth, know why you're going in to speak to somebody and think instead about you, how can I serve others? I like that question because it opens up reputation to not just be about something that you carry, but it's in the space that you are in as well. And that's an interesting way to look at it.

My question is actually to Alison and Naomi, both of you maybe. I have two questions probably combined. The first one is, you know, we all know of fearless leaders. They're also the ones who are feared.

So what I observed in my experience is, yes, reputation precedes you, but organizations are more or less just focused on outcomes and results. And as long as the leader is just delivering those, the reputation goes out of the window to a certain extent, at least. So I want to know, is this assumption of mine right or wrong based on what I've heard both of you speak about? And the second question is,

We also speak about authenticity and embracing our own authentic self and it's okay to be the nail that sticks out, it's okay to be powerful, it's okay to express certain emotions the way you feel it. So sometimes I feel like where I'm rising up the ladder, there is a dichotomy to say, okay, which self do I really embrace? And then I understand the reputation, but then what is the definition of this reputation? Are we looking at good, bad? Because it can again be relative to what each one of us feels.

I'd love to start with leaders who are fearless are feared. And the reason is there's a lot of research that shows that leaders who create psychological safety, who make people feel safe and who don't cultivate a culture of fear are more effective. And especially in the domain of creating environments where joy and levity can flourish. So for example, research has shown that in a one hour team meeting, if the leader sets a tone such that there is

an instance of laughter. One instance of laughter in a one-hour meeting, that team is more likely to come up with more creative problem solving during that one hour. We also know that leaders with a sense of humor, by the way,

Any sense of humor. This is not my leader has a good sense of humor. This is my leader has a sense of humor. The bar is very low, which is very correlated with creating environments of psychological safety are seen as more motivating and admired. Their teams are able to bounce back from setbacks more quickly, and they're able to diffuse tension in those moments as well. And so we often see, and again, this goes to this shift from it used to be that leaders needed to be revered and even feared.

And now we're finding that the ability for a leader to create environments that are safe, that cultivate creativity, that cultivate even joy and levity are most effective. It's great. I agree with everything Naomi said. I'm going to address the quote, your reputation is like an echo that precedes you, because the second part is it's also what remains after you leave the room.

And so it's a two-parter. And I do think you can go in a room and just do a good job and be fine and your reputation is fine. But I also believe that your reputation starts at the first point of contact. So if you're going into a room and you don't know a lot of people, they're going to make a judgment about you pretty quickly. And they're based on a few things. Again, how you communicate, how you look, do you make them feel good? Are you smart? Are you delivering what they want? And it can lead to a fixed bias.

And so you want that bias, whatever it is, to be positive. Now people say, well, how do I know what

what lingers after I leave because I'm gone. I don't know what's there. But it will show up later in your life or even just at work someone will say, "You know what? My friend went to that talk you gave and they said you did such a great job. Here's my card. I would love to hire you for something else." So those murmurs that remain after you leave a room, they have weight and they go to a secondary or tertiary audience. So I hope I'm answering your question correctly.

Go in, be the best version of yourself. And the expectations that we all put on ourselves, well, we all want to do well, that's why we're all sitting here. But think about people reaching out to you after because they've heard good things about your work.

And otherwise, I think just go and do your best. I think situational awareness is important behind this question. Different environments have put different value to different things that augment or detract from your reputation and being aware of what those are and then making conscious choices as Allison is talking about, I think is what you just have to see if just being really good at closing deals, but alienating everybody else is

Maybe your reputation is good because you're closing deals, but the long-term effect of alienating everybody else might have a downside for you. So I think it's a calculus you have to do in that situation. And I will simply say thank you to all of you for your time today. Thank you for your support. And thank you to these panelists for sharing their insight and their knowledge with us.

Thank you for joining us for this special Me Too We Live recorded episode. Be sure to listen to both episodes for this event. To learn more, please listen to Allison Kluger in episode 2, Naomi Bagdonis in episode 13, Nir Halevi in episode 30, Christian Wheeler in episode 18.

This episode was produced by Ryan Campos and me, Matt Ibrahams. Our music is from Floyd Wonder with special thanks to the Podium Podcast Company. Please find us on YouTube and wherever you get your podcasts. Be sure to subscribe and rate us. Also, follow us on LinkedIn and Instagram and check out faster smarter.io for deep dive videos, English language learning content, and our newsletter. Please consider our premium offering. You can find it

at faster smarter.io slash premium