How to Unlock Your Full Potential with #1 Professor Adam Grant

Mel Robbins introduces Adam Grant, Wharton organizational psychologist, researcher, and author of books including Hidden Potential, Give and Take, Originals, and Think Again. She asks what could change if listeners applied his work. Grant says his central concern is effectiveness: closing the gap between where someone is now and where they want to be by changing habits and questioning assumptions. Grant reframes disappointment, frustration, and regret as useful information. Disappointment can teach someone how to focus better, frustration can signal that a different route is needed, and regret can guide tomorrow's decisions. Instead of ruminating over a failure, he recommends asking what message today's failure contains for tomorrow. People become stuck, he says, when they become attached to one path rather than to the goal itself. If a path is not working, the goal may still be valid while the route needs to change. He also discusses “escalation of commitment to a losing course of action,” a term associated with Barry Staw. People continue investing in a failing plan because they want to prove that the original decision was not a mistake and that they are not failures. Grant's practical warning is that recognizing two wasted years is better than wasting the next 20.

Grant says nobody can know with certainty that a path is wrong, but people can reduce the risk of doubling down. First, they can set conditions in advance. Someone accepting a job might give it six months, define what a good fit would look like, and schedule a “career checkup” to compare reality with the original goals and values. This precommitment prevents day-to-day anxiety from making the decision for them. Second, people can build a challenge network: a trusted friend, mentor, or partner who will point out a learning, meaning, or work-life-balance plateau. Third, Grant recommends using “Solomon's paradox”—the tendency to give wiser advice to others than to ourselves. When people advise someone else, they zoom out and focus on the most important factors; when deciding for themselves, they become trapped in details and compare too many criteria. Grant therefore suggests imagining that a close friend is in the same situation and asking what advice you would give. This keeps the advice rooted in your own values and personality rather than blindly copying what works for somebody else. He also warns that outside advice often reflects the adviser’s situation, not yours, and can leave you feeling passive. Giving advice activates your own judgment and puts you in a more capable, empowered position.

Grant says overthinking often turns into underthinking because people repeatedly compare the same two choices. Research by Paul Nutt, based on hundreds of organizational decisions, found that considering only two options was the clearest leading indicator of a decision failing. Even considering a third possibility was associated with a greater chance of later judging the decision successful, although Grant says the research does not prove that option three directly causes better decisions. Mel compares this to throwing a ball for a dog: once a third possibility is introduced, the mind starts chasing and developing it. Grant calls this improving “peripheral vision.” When someone asks, “Should I stay in my job or quit?” a third option may be to craft the job. Research by Amy Wrzesniewski and Jane Dutton supports redesigning work by spending more time on tasks that fit one’s values and strengths, seeking energizing interactions, and changing the margins of the role. Grant cites a five-year study of thousands of people in Australia: people who were extremely dissatisfied and quit were, on average, often unhappier afterward. They knew the problems of the old job but imagined the new one more positively than reality justified, and transitions themselves were costly. He does not advise staying in an abusive or meaningless job, but says that an acceptable job may be worth redesigning before abandoning.

Grant argues that people judge potential incorrectly by focusing on how capable someone is at the beginning and ignoring motivation and opportunity. Child prodigies seem like obvious examples of potential, but he says they rarely become adult geniuses. In Benjamin Bloom's study of world-class musicians, artists, scientists, and athletes, many future high achievers were not the best children in their neighborhoods or even their families when they began. What distinguished them was extraordinary drive: they loved the activity, wanted to improve, and kept practicing when others became bored. Grant illustrates the point with his own story. At 13, he wanted to become a springboard diver after being cut from basketball and soccer. He was afraid of heights, inflexible, stiff, and visibly poor at diving. His coach, Eric Best, told him, “I will never cut a diver who wants to be here. And I will invest as much as you do.” Grant went from the worst diver at his school to a state finalist in two and a half years, qualified for Junior Olympic Nationals, made an All-American list, and was recruited to dive at the NCAA Division I level. Eric evaluated Grant by his motivation to learn rather than his physical limitations. Grant says coaches, mentors, and leaders should look for “sponges”—people who ask what they can try or improve. He also recommends mentally traveling backward: ask how proud your younger self would be of where you are now, rather than letting rising expectations erase the progress already made.

Grant says people commonly wait to feel confident before acting, but his diving experience taught him that the sequence is reversed. While attempting a difficult full-twisting two-and-a-half dive, he spent 45 minutes shaking on the three-meter board and imagining injuries. Coach Eric Best finally asked whether he would do the dive “one day.” When Grant said yes, Best replied, “What are you waiting for?” Grant realized that he could only become ready by taking the leap. He applies the same lesson to writing his first book and accepting a TED Talk invitation despite being shy and afraid of public speaking. The action came first, and confidence grew afterward. For feedback, he uses the diving system of receiving a score from zero to 10 and immediately asking, “How can I get closer to 10?” He recommends asking colleagues, audiences, or collaborators for a score and one change that would improve the work. Grant also warns that progress without savoring creates a never-ending treadmill. People can burn out or experience “bore-out,” repeating work without joy. Instead of treating practice as monotonous suffering, he recommends “deliberate play”: turn improvement into a game against your past self and future self. He uses Steph Curry as an example; Curry practices shooting while exhausted or off balance and tries to beat personal records, rather than merely competing against other people.

Grant describes “pebbling,” named after penguins that present smooth pebbles during courtship. In modern relationships, pebbling means sending someone a carefully chosen meme, article, reel, song, or show because it reflects their distinctive taste. It is not mass-spamming; it communicates, “I thought of you,” “I know you,” and “I see you.” Research suggests that sending a relevant item after meeting someone can make the person feel closer because it demonstrates that their humor or interests were remembered. Pebbling can also reactivate a dormant tie—someone from the past whom you have not contacted in years. Grant says 90% of people who reconnect in studies report enjoying the experience. Dormant friends may offer more novel advice than current contacts because they have been exposed to different people and information, rather than repeating the same network’s knowledge. Mel describes reconnecting with her college roommate Bernadine and other friends after two decades; Bernadine sent a photograph of a 1986 T-shirt from the “Melon Burns Bar” they created in their dorm room, a particularly powerful “pebble from the past.” Grant suggests reopening a connection with an article, book, song, milestone, birthday, job congratulations, or an invitation to meet when visiting the person’s city. People can also reconnect as givers by offering help, expressing gratitude, or making a useful introduction. His “five-minute favor”—connecting two people who might benefit from knowing each other—helps both recipients and brings the introducer closer to both.

Grant says relationships often disappoint because people assume every important person should meet every need. His research identifies three kinds of connection. Allies share goals and work toward a mission together. Pals share interests and hobbies and have fun together. Companions share values and provide emotional care and understanding. The same categories apply to romantic relationships, friendships, and work collaborations. He gives an example of telling a friend that his wife, Allison, had breast cancer and was undergoing chemotherapy. The friend responded briefly and never followed up, which initially made Grant feel betrayed. He later recognized that he had expected companionship from someone who was actually one of his strongest allies and a good pal. The person was an excellent brainstorming partner, connector, and racket-sports companion, but not someone who naturally provided ongoing emotional support. Once Grant stopped expecting companionship from him, the disappointment disappeared. Mel connects this to David Kessler's image of “looking for milk in a hardware store” and Oprah's idea that a person should not seek 10 gallons from someone who only has a pint to give. Grant says people should accept others as they are and identify the right wavelength for each interaction. Although the closest relationships may combine all three types, expecting every friend or partner to be an ally, pal, and companion creates unnecessary pressure. A varied network is associated with better well-being than relying on one person for everything.

Grant tells Mel that three career skills matter in a world shaped by information abundance and AI. First, success no longer depends primarily on collecting facts; it depends on connecting dots—recognizing patterns, synthesizing information, and reconciling competing ideas. Second, the career currency has shifted from ability to agility. In a rapidly changing environment, people who learn and adapt quickly may advance faster than people whose existing abilities are strongest. Third, human experience remains difficult for machines to replicate. People who understand others' needs, ask curious questions, advise well, and help others face challenges provide value that technology cannot easily substitute. Grant calls this “inverse charisma,” a term inspired by E. M. Forster: rather than making yourself appear magnetic, you make the other person more charismatic by asking thoughtful follow-ups and drawing out a wiser, sharper version of them. For workers overwhelmed by technology, AI, shrinking teams, and accelerating demands, Grant recommends prioritizing the place where three things overlap: what energizes you, what other people need, and where you have unique value to add. He asks, “If you were not doing your job, who would be worse off?” The people or groups named—clients, patients, customers, readers, or colleagues—help reveal the work that matters most. He also recommends asking a manager, “What is the biggest problem I can work on for you that would make your life easier?”

Grant admits he was late to addressing gender inequality at work. Female colleagues Nancy Rothbard and Ségal Barsade told him that men must call attention to the evidence because women who point out workplace disparities are more likely to be dismissed as self-serving or complaining, while men’s observations are often taken more seriously. He discusses Linda Babcock's research on “office housework”: women are disproportionately asked to take meeting notes, plan parties, create agendas, and perform other thankless tasks. These jobs are necessary but usually not treated as strategic in performance reviews or promotion decisions. Women are asked more often because of stereotypes that they are caring and helpful; when they say no, they can be penalized for violating those expectations. Grant recommends a constructive no: thank the manager, list the existing responsibilities already on your plate, and ask which tasks should be prioritized. This turns refusal into visibility and a strategy discussion. He also discusses the “likability penalty” against women who assert ideas, ask for promotions, or negotiate. He says women should not stop being assertive, but can pair ambition with openness and explain how a promotion or raise benefits the team. His final message is that it is never too late to unlock potential, reconnect with someone, ask for a raise, or build a new path. When facing an either-or trap, Mel’s closing instruction is to look for door C—or break the rock through the window.