Summary
This well-researched investigation provides a framework for understanding how the political hyper-polarization in the U.S. is a product of systems working as intended (though the dysfunctional outcomes associated with integrating these systems into one social fabric have been generally not as intended).
The author does not seek to provide solutions, and of the 3 recommendations he reluctantly provides, only 1 is actionable on an individual level: focus on local politics, as this is the political scope of influence where you can actually have a significant influence.
My Thoughts
Why We're Polarized disappointed me, but mainly because of my unfair expectations. I bought this book hoping to learn (in general) Why Social Polarization Happens or How to Neutralize Polarization. However, Ezra Klein (the author) only promised to explain the causes of the hyper-polarization of this specific moment in the U.S., which he did successfully (Hint: Identity politics across the socio-political spectrum is a main culprit).
His investigation is well-done, but because of the limited scope of his goals and lack of actionability, I'm not convinced that reading it was worth my time.
Despite the author's explicit reluctance to provide actionable takeaways, this book does inspire the following recommendations:
If you are a stakeholder in any organization that has multiple interacting systems, it's critical to explore how those systems may interact with each other as part of any QA process.
A Parenting Example
Imagine that a couple only teaches their children to respect or value critical thinking. This philosophy may work well when they are consuming media from home; however, when they interact with the outside world and inevitably need to communicate with authority figures (who are not always competent or good-natured) then those children may decide to not show respect toward the wrong authority figure, possibly resulting in severe consequences.
A Sales Example
I once worked for an organization that partially incentivized Sales performance based on EOY sales "opportunities" (so if I'm a salesperson who is in contact with Walmart and I believe there's a 20% probability I can sell them $1M worth of services, this recorded "opportunity" would count as $200K).
The system worked exactly as intended, and that year 100% of the Sales team earned a performance bonus. However, the following year the company earned far less revenue than expected. Why? Because nobody looked at how the performance incentive system motivated the team to severely embellish their "opportunities", leading to an annual org strategy based on very inaccurate data.
When faced with a decision that involves other people, explicitly ask yourself whether identity labels might be creating biases that impact your evaluation.
A Hiring Candidates Example
If you are choosing among candidates to hire on your team and you are leaning toward a candidate simply because they "just feel like" a good fit, ask yourself which candidate looks better based solely on the evidence you've observed. I am not suggesting to entirely ignore your intuition, but be aware that humans are prone to the similarity bias (i.e. we are often subconsciously attracted to people with whom we share identity labels).
An Employee Selection and Promotion Example
I find psychological/motivational tools such as the Myers-Briggs or DiSC frameworks to be highly useful for employees to better-understand their colleagues. When you see an individual's results, you can ask them targeted questions to learn more about their workplace preferences (and optimize for a better collaboration experience).
However, misuse of these tools can lead to terrible decision-making. How? When companies use these results to label employees (e.g. I'm a Myers-Briggs INTJ and a DiSC Dc), it is common to presume that each individual is the quintessential version of that label— and that their preferences are somehow a good proxy for their aptitudes. For my results, companies that rely on these labels are more likely to (without evidence) presume that I'd excel in a leadership position (yay!) but be less likely to flourish in a teamwork-oriented supportive role (not true!). This could result in me being less likely to get hired for a supportive role, but if hired, more likely to get promoted into a leadership position— all without assessing my actual capabilities.
My Recommendation
You should only read this book if you are specifically interested in exploring the current U.S. socio-political climate— not if you're mainly interested in the more general topic of social polarization or how to effect positive change amid social polarization.
I really do appreciate the intellectual rigor and humility that prevented the author from making premature or overgeneralizing conclusions. In fact, if he ever makes a sequel How to Neutralize Social Polarization, I'll read that book and hopefully be able to recommend it here.
