The Empathy Project
Learning from the first cohorts, looking toward 2027
Employees in the first Empathy Project cohorts have begun meeting people whose lives they might otherwise never encounter. In the appreciation notes available so far, employees and conversation partners describe feeling heard, finding unexpected common ground, and wanting to learn more.1–3
Across the two founding cohorts, 34 employees contributed to conversations with volunteers around the world. Acquaint reports 168 hours volunteered across both sides of those conversations. Everyone taking part gives their time, bringing their own questions, experience, and attention.1–2,10
We are encouraged by the quality of attention people describe and by the interest some participants have expressed in continuing. We also have a clearer understanding of what the next cohorts need: consistent reflection support and opportunities to return to an experience after its immediate impression has passed. The pilot gives us useful observations to build on while we work toward understanding whether, and how, these encounters influence everyday behavior.1–3
What the first companies made possible
The first cohorts brought together employees from an international law firm and a global technology company with volunteers in Acquaint's existing community. Combining the law firm's August 19, 2026 snapshot with the technology company's September 9, 2026 update, 41 employees had signed up, 34 had completed at least one conversation, and 14 had reached four or more conversations. The technology-company counts were reconfirmed on September 17, 2026.1–2
Participation, from sign-up to four conversations
| Participation snapshot | Law firm | Tech co. | Total |
|---|---|---|---|
| Signed up | 26 | 15 | 41 |
| Listed as active | 22 | 14 | 36 |
| At least one conversation | 21 | 13 | 34 |
| Four or more conversations | 11 | 3 | 14 |
These are the latest available source snapshots, checked on September 21, 2026, rather than live platform totals. The cohorts were at different points in delivery, so the figures should not be used to compare company performance. Four conversations do not establish completion of the Brief, reflection, or Debrief. A full-program completion total is not established by these records.1–2
Solidarity by design
Both people give their time
Employees and their conversation partners are all volunteers. Each person brings something to the exchange, and what they learn is shaped by both of them.
For example, a one-hour conversation between two volunteers contributes two volunteer hours. The 168-hour total counts employees and conversation partners together; it does not mean 168 separate conversations.10
Total reported by Acquaint on September 18, 2026. It has not been independently recomputed and does not establish completion of the Brief, reflection, or Debrief, or lasting changes in behavior.
Brings an established community and a practice of private, one-to-one conversations grounded in curiosity, equality, and appreciation. Both people participate as volunteers, and either may offer knowledge, ask for help, or discover something unfamiliar. Its optional appreciation notes give people a way to tell their partner what they valued; early material shows partners helping new employees settle in, alongside employees offering patience and close attention in return.1,4
Contributes the transformative learning design and support for company champions. The Empathy Project overview describes the intended experience: a Brief, four conversations, reflection, and a team Debrief. Inqli's planned contribution is a further layer of reflection and sense-making. The first cohorts let us begin examining how these elements fit together in practice.3,5
What people are beginning to notice
The qualitative evidence now includes 85 appreciation notes: 54 associated with 9 law-firm participants and 31 associated with 6 technology-company participants. The added collection includes people still working toward four conversations. These are selected accounts, sometimes describing both sides of the same encounter. Their purpose is appreciation, so they tell us most about what people valued; they cannot represent everyone's experience.1–2
Being listened to
Across both companies' notes, partners appreciated remembered details and patience, while employees valued help with their first conversations and the platform. We read this as reciprocal attention, with Acquaint's community already contributing to the conditions the wider project hopes to support.1–2,4
Nervousness giving way to comfort
Some accounts describe familiar interests emerging alongside differences in people's lives. Pettigrew and Tropp's contact research offers a reason to take those moments seriously: it associates cross-group interaction with lower prejudice, via reduced anxiety and perspective-taking. The accounts resemble parts of those processes, though we have not measured anxiety or prejudice here.1,6–7
Curiosity, sometimes surprise
An employee described being challenged by a partner's questions; elsewhere, participants discussed assumptions and stereotypes through the stories they exchanged. A technology-company employee described learning about diversity within a country beyond its food, including language and culture. The notes rarely explain an original belief and how it changed. They give the next round of reflection something specific to explore: what surprised someone, what they expected, and whether they now understand anything differently.1–2
Beyond the call
One employee reported sharing something learned in a conversation with others afterward. Other notes express intentions to explore something further, and the company champion reported interest in continuing. These are useful starting points for follow-up: reported activity is more concrete than an intention, and both give us something to ask about later.1,3
A participant’s perspective
“The experience with your platform and connecting with people around the world is amazing.”
Yaron Levi, CISO at Dolby, shared this testimonial after his fourth conversation. He described valuing direct encounters with people beyond media and other external filters, ending with “Just pure curiosity!” The testimonial was offered for use; his private appreciation notes are not included.2
Taken together, the accounts support an early part of our expectation: conversations can give people experiences worth returning to and thinking about. We still need to learn whether that attention develops into more accurate understanding, changed assumptions, or sustained action. The current evidence does not establish lasting empathy or prosocial identity change, and it cannot isolate the contribution of the full program design.
Helping experience become learning
The Brief–Check-in–Debrief approach gives participants support before, during, and after an experience. See how the full experience fits together.3,5
The Brief
A champion helps people understand why they are taking part and notice their expectations.
Four conversations
During the experience, the champion checks in and responds to what participants need.
Reflection prompts
Post-call prompts provide additional reflection support between conversations.
The team Debrief
Colleagues discuss what they experienced, whether it matched expectations, and what they make of the difference.
Mezirow's transformative learning theory helps explain the purpose: adults can examine the assumptions through which they interpret experience and test their understanding in dialogue with others. For the Empathy Project, the hope is that this practice contributes over time to prosocial identity change, meaning how people understand themselves and act toward others. The theory informs the design; we are still investigating its application here.5,8
The first law-firm cohort had not received the intended Inqli questions, and the August discussions anticipated the first technology-company group would also miss that platform. Acquaint provided separate prompts as an interim route while the partners developed the wider process. We therefore have uneven exposure to the intended design, which limits what we can learn about its combined effect.3
Making it clearer for the next cohorts
The priority is to make the reflection route clear before participants begin and ensure prompts arrive when they can be useful. Champions need a simple way to check how people are doing and help them return when scheduling becomes difficult. Understanding the experience of those who pause, including those who choose to stop, will help us improve support without assuming why.1–3
The law-firm Debrief took place on August 21. This report does not yet include substantive participant feedback on the Brief and Debrief, so those parts of the experience remain questions for follow-up.3
What we want to learn through 2027
Our proposed direction is to build from these first cohorts, give returning participants opportunities to continue, and learn with additional companies in different workplace settings. These are proposed learning priorities for the partners to shape together.
Try the complete experience, consistently
Alongside conversation participation, record whether people received the Brief, champion support, reflection prompts, and Debrief. A short starting assessment and later follow-up would help examine change over time. Evaluating the added contribution of particular elements would require an appropriate comparison design agreed with research partners.
Understand what repetition makes possible
Returning participants could help us explore whether listening becomes more deliberate, whether unfamiliar encounters become easier to enter, and whether people begin noticing assumptions they previously passed over. Progress may look different for different people; gaining the confidence to ask a question can be as useful as revising a strongly held view.
Attend to accurate understanding
Eyal, Steffel, and Epley found that imagining another's perspective did not consistently improve accuracy, while obtaining it directly through conversation did. A useful follow-up question: are participants asking and checking what another person means, even when they think they already understand? We would also invite concrete examples of anything done differently, allowing an equally clear answer when nothing has changed.9
A fuller account of who takes part and returns, how people experience the combined design, and whether any learning carries beyond the conversations, including partners and those who do not finish, while respecting private reflection and letting participants choose what they share.
Join one of the next conversations
Explore current opportunities to take part yourself, bring people from your company, or help shape the research. The Empathy Project site lists upcoming introductory conversations and ways to get involved.
Have a conversation
Meet someone whose life looks different from yours, one conversation at a time.
Explore opportunitiesarrow_forward groupsBring your company
Give a group of employees the full experience, with champion support and reflection.
Explore opportunitiesarrow_forward menu_bookPartner on the research
Help us learn whether these encounters change how people act, not only how they feel.
Explore opportunitiesarrow_forwardWant to read more first? Explore the Empathy Project overview or the complete project picture.
Where the next phase can go
The founding companies have already helped us see where people find value and where the experience needs more consistent support. Returning companies can help us understand what develops with practice, while new companies can show us how the experience works in other settings.
Sources and further reading
Private pilot records are not linked here because they contain identifiable material. Public background and research are noted below; they explain the approach and do not independently verify pilot outcomes. The 2027 priorities are recommendations arising from this analysis.
Conversation hours
Katherine Mahon, Acquaint, correspondence received September 18, 2026, reporting 168 hours of conversation across employees and their partners. Both people's time is included. Unpublished; not independently recomputed.