The Core Argument
Published in 2021, Adam Grant's Think Again: The Power of Knowing What You Don't Know makes a case that most leaders invest heavily in thinking and learning but almost never invest in rethinking and unlearning. Grant, an organizational psychologist at Wharton, argues that in a world where conditions shift constantly, the ability to revise your own opinions is more valuable than the ability to form strong ones.
The book builds on a body of research about cognitive flexibility, motivated reasoning, and identity-based thinking. Grant's central claim is that intelligence alone does not protect against bad judgment. In fact, smarter people are sometimes worse at updating their views because they are better at rationalizing positions they already hold. The antidote is not more intelligence — it is more intellectual humility.
The Three Mindsets That Block Rethinking
Grant identifies three default modes that prevent leaders from revising their views. Each mode has its uses, but when applied reflexively — especially in situations that call for rethinking — they become traps.
The Preacher
When we believe we are right, we slip into preacher mode — delivering sermons to protect our sacred beliefs. In this mode, we are not processing new information. We are advocating. The Preacher selectively highlights evidence that supports their existing position and dismisses anything that contradicts it. Leaders fall into preacher mode when their identity is tied to a particular strategy, product direction, or management philosophy.
The Prosecutor
When we see flaws in someone else's reasoning, we shift into prosecutor mode — marshaling arguments to prove them wrong. The Prosecutor is not curious about the other person's logic. They are building a case. In leadership, prosecutor mode shows up in meetings where someone dismantles a colleague's proposal without genuinely considering its merits. The goal is winning the argument, not finding the best answer.
The Politician
When we want approval, we enter politician mode — campaigning for the views that will win the most support. The Politician reads the room and adopts whatever position is popular. In leadership, this manifests as shifting your stated opinion based on who is in the meeting, or avoiding unpopular but correct positions because they might cost social capital.
The Scientist Mindset
Grant proposes the Scientist mindset as the alternative to all three traps. Scientists form hypotheses, not opinions. They design experiments, not arguments. And when the data contradicts their hypothesis, they update it — they do not defend it.
Applied to leadership, this means treating your strategies, assumptions, and even your management style as hypotheses to be tested. When a product launch underperforms, the Scientist does not preach about why the strategy was right or prosecute the team for poor execution. Instead, they ask: "What did we assume that turned out to be wrong? What should we try differently?"
Grant's research found that founders who adopted a Scientist mindset earned 40% more revenue than those who did not. The difference was not in their initial ideas — it was in how quickly they revised those ideas when reality did not match their expectations.
Confident Humility
One of Grant's most useful concepts is "confident humility" — the combination of confidence in your ability to figure things out with humility about whether you have figured them out yet. This is distinct from both arrogance (high confidence, no humility) and impostor syndrome (high humility, no confidence).
Confident humility sounds like: "I have strong views on this, and I am open to changing them if someone shows me better evidence." It is the posture of a leader who is comfortable saying "I was wrong" or "I changed my mind" without feeling diminished. Grant's research shows that leaders who practice confident humility are rated as more effective by their teams, not less, because their willingness to update signals genuine competence rather than weakness.
When to Use This Framework
- You are making a high-stakes decision and feel very certain. That certainty itself is worth examining. Grant's research suggests that the more confident you feel about a complex decision, the more likely you are operating in Preacher or Prosecutor mode. Use the Scientist mindset to stress-test your assumptions before committing.
- Your team has a pattern of groupthink. If meetings produce quick consensus with little debate, it may be because team members are in Politician mode — agreeing with the loudest or most senior voice. Introduce the practice of asking "What would have to be true for this to be wrong?" before finalizing decisions.
- You are in conflict with a colleague and both sides are dug in. When a disagreement becomes about winning rather than learning, Think Again provides tools for stepping out of Prosecutor mode. Grant recommends "motivational interviewing" techniques: asking genuine questions about the other person's reasoning rather than trying to defeat it.
- Your organization is going through significant change. During transitions — new markets, new leadership, restructuring — old assumptions become liabilities. The Think Again framework helps teams identify which beliefs served them in the old context and which need updating for the new one.
Common Mistakes
- Confusing rethinking with indecisiveness. Grant is not arguing that leaders should constantly second-guess themselves or delay decisions. The Scientist mindset moves quickly — it just builds in revision points. Make a decision, set a check-in date, review the evidence, and adjust. Speed and intellectual humility are compatible.
- Weaponizing the framework against others. Telling a colleague "You're in Preacher mode" during a heated discussion will not help anyone rethink anything. The framework works best as a self-diagnostic tool. Ask yourself which mode you are in before evaluating others.
- Treating all opinions as equally valid. Intellectual humility does not mean that every perspective deserves equal weight. It means being willing to change your mind when the evidence warrants it — not that all evidence is equally strong. Grant distinguishes between being open-minded (good) and being empty-minded (not useful).
Putting It Into Practice
Start with one belief you hold strongly about your team, your product, or your industry. Write it down as a hypothesis rather than a fact: "I believe that [X] because [Y]." Then ask yourself what evidence would change your mind. If you cannot name any evidence that would change your mind, you are in Preacher mode — and that is worth examining.
In your next team meeting, try what Grant calls a "challenge network" exercise. Ask each person to identify one assumption the team is making that might be wrong. The point is not to create doubt — it is to create the habit of testing assumptions before they calcify into untouchable orthodoxies.
Cabinet includes Think Again principles in its coaching approach, with structured reflection prompts that help you identify which mindset you are operating in and build the Scientist habit into your weekly decision-making routine.