In his latest book Supercommunicators, Charles Duhigg describes how some individuals are especially good at connecting with other people. They’re the people who get invited to every party because they make it more lively and fun, are regularly asked for advice from their friends and family, and who just seem to have a knack for building deep, meaningful relationships. Charles calls these individuals Supercommunicators.

Supercommunicators are distinguished by their ability to connect with others primarily by expertly navigating conversations. This requires being able to understand the type of conversation that’s happening, ask the the right questions at the right time, and match the tone of voice and body language of others in the conversation. In the book, Charles talks about the three main types of conversations: 1) the what’s this really about conversation, 2) the how do we feel conversation, and 3) the who are we conversation.

The “what’s this really about” conversation is characterized by a negotiation between participants about the topic of the conversation. Sometimes this negotiation is short and explicit. For example, a work meeting might start with someone saying “we’re here to discuss this quarter’s projections”, and everyone else nods in agreement, concluding the negotiation. But often, this negotiation is implicit and quietly handled. Someone might start the conversation with a casual remark about the weather. That topic might last for a minute, and then someone else might add a joke, following by polite chuckles and then an awkward silence, followed by yet another person bringing up a recent news event. Whether explicit or implicit, the “what’s this really about” conversation consists of topic offers, feedback, and counteroffers until participants are aligned.

The “how do we feel” conversation is about emotions. In most dialogues, there comes a point when participants have to decide whether to allow a conversation to become emotional, or to keep it dry. For example, while discussing plans for the weekend with a friend, they might say “I don’t think I can make dinner because I’ve got some things to deal with.” They might say this in a hushed tone with a sad look on their face while looking down at their feet. At this point, you’ve got a decision to make. Do you let your friend’s remark pass by without comment or do you ask for elaboration? Most of the time, the right choice is to ask for elaboration, lean into the emotions, and allow the “how do we feel” conversation to begin.

The “who are we” conversation is about identity. These conversations include explorations of our histories, backgrounds, families, the causes we believe in, what we love, and what we deplore. Of the three types of conversations, these are the hardest ones to have because the stakes are often so high. When we find out that someone went to the same college as us, that immediately connects us to the same tribe. And when we find out that someone voted for the opposite political party, that immediately places them outside of our tribe. Many of us are advised against bringing up politics or religion when meeting people for the first time because those topics spark risky and uncomfortable “who are we” conversations. And while there is certainly a wrong time and place to have “who are we” conversations, that doesn’t mean we should avoid them altogether.

According to Charles, most miscommunication and conflict stem from participants not being on the same page about what type of conversation is taking place. If someone is looking to discuss their feelings, while someone else is looking to problem solve, they’re not going to easily connect. Supercommunicators have the ability to quickly and reliably identify the type of conversation taking place, and to act in ways that allow for the maximum connection between participants.

When is it okay to quit and when should you keep trying?

Achieving our goals in life and business requires perseverance, passion and commitment over a long period of time. That’s grit. However, not all goals are created equal. Choosing one goal over another could be the difference between a life of immense fulfillment and one of regrettable suffering.

I recently read two books which (based on their titles) seemed like they would have little to agree on: Grit by Angela Duckworth and Quit by Annie Duke. The central question in both was the one above. What I discovered was that while both authors approached the question differently, their final answer was the same.

Whether we see them as such or not, our goals are organized into a hierarchy. Small goals with timelines measured in hours or days are at the bottom, and large goals (which often encompass smaller ones) with timelines measured in years or decades are the top. For example, one of my small goals is to run every single day. This goal is encompassed by my slightly larger goal of staying physically fit. And that goal is encompassed by my even larger goal of living a healthy life. The diagram below illustrates the idea of goal hierarchies.

While hierarchy details such as number of tiers, number of high level goals, and timelines may differ for each individual, there is still always a hierarchy. Low level goals are usually a means to an end and high level goals are usually an end in themselves.

The answer to the grit or quit question that Angela and Annie converge on is this: grit is defined by our ability to hold onto the same high level goals for long periods of time. Being gritty is not at odds with quitting on low level goals which are only a means to an end. For example, if I suffer an injury that makes it hard for me to run every day, I shouldn’t continue running every day just because I’m not a quitter. Rather, I should realize that running every day is just a means to staying physically fit and look to replace running with another low level goal that serves the same purpose (such as swimming). If I did that, I’d have been gritty with respect to my high level goals and a quitter with respect to my low level ones. And that’s productive.

Some amount of perseverance is still required for low level goals. If you quit on running every day after your first day, you should probably give it more time. The point and my takeaway from the two books is that our perseverance should increase with goal size.