Talks at GoogleJefferson Fisher | The Next Conversation Workbook | Talks at Google
Talks at Google
Introducing Jefferson Fisher 0:01
Jefferson Fisher, a Texas trial lawyer, is introduced at Google to discuss his new book, The Next Conversation Workbook. He explains that the workbook builds on his earlier bestseller, The Next Conversation, but adds practical exercises, prompts, and journaling spaces so readers can actually apply the ideas rather than just read about them, aimed at arguing less and talking more. He says the two books can stand alone, and that the workbook is meant for people caught in the middle of relationships, managing those above and below them, giving the example of teachers who must communicate with students, faculty, and parents alike, a group he feels connected to since his mother, sister, and mother-in-law all work in education.
What was said versus heard 4:31
Asked about the biggest problem in communication, Fisher points to the gap between what was said and what was actually heard. He describes the common argument where one person insists on what they said while the other insists on what they heard, and suggests replacing the defensive line that's not what I said with the question what did you hear, since people are poor judges of how their own words land on others.
Cognitive dissonance in arguments 6:30
Fisher explains cognitive dissonance as the reflexive frown or resistance you feel when you hear an opinion that clashes with something deeply held, sometimes rooted in beliefs formed as far back as childhood or passed down from a grandmother. Once that wall goes up, confirmation bias kicks in and people filter out anything that contradicts their side, which he compares to jury selection, where jurors form instant impressions before evidence is even presented. He argues that facts and fact-checking rarely change minds because the resistance is emotional, not logical, and instead recommends approaching disagreement with something to learn rather than something to prove, using open questions like how long have you felt that way instead of why.
AI as a communication tool 12:31
Fisher argues AI can build sentences but not trust, character, or integrity, so while it can help draft an email or think through a conversation, human connection still has to do the real work. He describes using AI as a thought partner to spot blind spots before a difficult conversation and to distill a big thought into the three-sentence email limit he sets for his company, comparing it to trial work where juries only need the one detail that actually matters rather than every piece of evidence. He also notes that audiences rarely remember the content of a talk, only how the speaker made them feel, which he ties to the same idea that people remember how you talked to them more than what you taught them.
Moving between communication cultures 19:31
Discussing how communication norms differ across companies and industries, illustrated by Google's own term googliness, Fisher advises that sharing struggles rather than projecting perfection helps people connect across any culture, since confidence means knowing what you don't know rather than knowing everything. He gives the example of a woman who felt unqualified after a promotion and suggests she use that honestly as a strength rather than hide it. He also recommends replacing statements of disagreement with language of perspective, saying I see things differently instead of I don't agree, and introduces the idea of an owner's manual, a written exercise for defining what you will and won't allow in how you're spoken to.
Phrases that undermine you 23:31
Fisher calls out common filler phrases like sorry to bother you, this might be a dumb question, and does that make sense, arguing they quietly erode credibility. He focuses on does that make sense, explaining it functions as a crutch that either implies the listener might not be smart enough to understand or signals the speaker's own uncertainty, and that it puts the listener in a lose-lose spot where they just nod along. He suggests replacing it with genuine questions like what's your take or do you have any thoughts, and closes this stretch by noting that silence, such as a deliberate pause, can be a powerful signal that you are thinking rather than reacting.
The Power of Pausing 26:32
Pausing before you answer signals that you are actually thinking, not just reacting on speed, and it comes across as confident rather than uncertain. Short pauses help make a point land, while a long pause of five to seven seconds works well after someone says something rude, since the silence echoes their words back and often makes them apologize or take it back. The same patience applies to email or text: if you are not sure what to say, wait, even until the next morning, since someone else's urgency does not have to become your priority.
Naming the Pause Out Loud 28:30
To keep a thoughtful pause from being mistaken for confusion or a dropped connection, say it plainly, telling the other person you are not ignoring them, you are thinking, or that you need a moment before responding. Saying this out loud, especially in an argument or on a video call, signals strength rather than weakness.
Communicating Well on Video 30:33
On video calls, smiling still matters even if it feels unnatural, and keeping your hands visible helps people read you the way they would in person, since a talking head with no hands is harder to place in context. Because attention drifts easily on screen, answers should stay short, ideally around three sentences, acting like a well rather than a waterfall, trusting that whoever is listening is intelligent enough to ask a follow-up question if they need one.
AI-generated summary. It can be wrong or incomplete - check anything that matters against the original.
