How to do it
- Pick someone gone for years, not months. For months, two lines with no reason will do.
- Bring one specific thing. A question only they can answer, or news they'd want.
- Say why it's them. What they know, or what made you think of them.
- One message. If it goes quiet, leave it.
Why the old line pays
- Old tiethree years silent
Executive MBA students picked people they hadn't been in touch with for at least three years, one once close, one once distant.
- The reasona real question
They asked for advice on a real work project, not a vague catch-up.
- The answeras useful, more new
The advice from the old contact was as useful as advice from a current one, and more novel.
- Youhave a reason to write
The once-close contacts gave the fullest benefit. That a lapsed friend responds the same way is my extension; nobody tested friendships.
Why it works
Executive MBA students asked contacts they hadn't spoken to for at least three years for advice on a real work project. That advice was as useful as advice from current contacts, or more, and more novel. Evidence: worth trying The fullest benefit came from people they had once been close to, which is what a lost friend is. Evidence: worth trying An old line isn't dead. It can still carry something. Evidence: worth trying
This and send the message work together. That one says don't wait for a reason, and for someone you've drifted from lately it holds: people valued a short, unexpected hello more than the sender guessed. Evidence: decent After years, the reason isn't a condition for writing. It's something to write about: a specific question or piece of news gives them something to answer. That's my reading, not a finding. Evidence: worth trying
The long readEvery step of the chain, each study with its numbers, and what's still unproven. 2 min read.
What happens in your brain
This chain is behaviour, not brain areas.
The old tie has gone quiet. The contacts in the study had been dormant for three years or more. Each person reconnected with two: one they'd once been close to, one they'd barely known. Evidence: worth trying
The reason is a real question. People asked about an actual project they were working on. Evidence: worth trying
The answer is as useful, and newer. Advice from the dormant contacts was as useful as from current ones, and more novel. Evidence: worth trying
You have a reason to write. The once-close contacts gave every benefit the researchers measured: quick help, new ideas, trust and a shared way of seeing things. The once-distant ones were almost as useful. Evidence: worth trying That a lapsed friend would respond the same way is my extension. The study was about work advice between executives, not friendship. Evidence: worth trying
The proof
- Levin, Walter and Murnighan asked 224 executive MBA students to consult two dormant ties, people out of contact for three years or more, about a real work project; 129 completed both surveys, about four in five of them men. They compared it with the current ties they had already consulted. The dormant ties were as useful or more, and gave more novel advice. Evidence: worth trying
- Once-close dormant ties gave all four benefits measured; once-distant ones were almost as useful. Evidence: worth trying
How to do it
- Pick someone gone for years, not months. For months, two lines with no reason will do.
- Bring one specific thing: a question only they can answer, or news they'd want to hear.
- Say why it's them. What they know, or what made you think of them.
- One message. If it goes quiet, leave it.
Watch out
The study was executives, mostly men, asking old work contacts for work advice. Evidence: worth trying Whether a friend you've lost responds the same way hasn't been tested. Evidence: worth trying For someone you drifted from in the last months, you don't need a reason: two lines will do. Evidence: worth trying If the two of you fell out, a question about something else skips the part that needs saying.