Connection.Questions Make your own

Work icebreaker questions

Every question here is answerable in front of your manager. These 50 are about the work — how you like feedback, what you'd delete from the calendar — and none of them need the people in the room to like each other.

Openers that don't ask anyone to overshare

Nobody's first answer of the day should be a confession. These are the ones you can ask someone you have met twice — how they actually got here, the jargon they brought from an old job, an opinion about a piece of software — and still learn something you would use.

How this person actually works

The useful part, and the reason to do this at all. How someone signals they are heads-down, how they want to be told a thing needs changing, when in the week their good thinking happens. Most teams learn this by getting it wrong for a year first.

Who taught you what

Credit questions. Everyone here was taught something by someone, and a fair number of those people were never told.

The awkward ones that are still safe to ask

Friction about process, never about people. Nobody is asked who annoys them. They are asked what they have quietly built a workaround for, which is the same information without the casualty.

What people want next

Ambition questions a manager can be in the room for without it turning into a performance review. Not one of them is about promotion.

Some questions are easier to answer when neither of you chose them.

Turn one over. You would not have picked it — that is the point.

Six questions from this page, face down.

On the site they live on a wheel. You spin, it lands, nobody chose it.

Now make one that knows you → $11 once · your photos and inside jokes · yours to keep

Does any of this actually work?

Answerable in front of a manager is not the same as shallow, and the difference has been measured. The competition for this search is a list of two hundred fun prompts. This is the opposite bet. Across a series of experiments reported in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, conversations between strangers felt less awkward, and created more connectedness and happiness, than the participants themselves expected; people were especially prone to overestimate how awkward a deep conversation would be compared with a shallow one; and having had both kinds, they felt more connected to the deep conversation partner. The authors argue that those miscalibrated expectations are what steer people into small talk in the first place. That work was done on strangers in a laboratory, not on colleagues in a Tuesday stand-up, so reading it onto a work meeting is my inference and not the authors' finding. It is still the reason nothing here asks which biscuit you would be.

Nothing here goes deeper than the second rung, and that is a decision about power rather than taste. Edmondson's study of 51 work teams in a manufacturing company introduced team psychological safety — a shared belief held by members of a team that the team is safe for interpersonal risk taking — and found it associated with learning behaviour, which in turn mediated between psychological safety and team performance; team efficacy, measured alongside it, was not associated with learning behaviour once psychological safety was controlled for. Whether a room is safe to be honest in is a property of the room, and no list of questions supplies it. A separate review argues that group size is the overlooked variable in disclosure: adding people creates systematic challenges for speakers and listeners alike — the authors call it the many minds problem — with consequences for how much people disclose, what they disclose, and how they feel about it afterwards. That is a review setting out a problem, not an experiment solving it, and it is worth saying so. Put the two together and you have the constraint this set is built under. A workplace group has an audience, and one of the people in it may be writing your review later in the year. Our corpus runs to three depths; this set stops at two, and the third rung was never written for it, because a question that is right for two people on a sofa becomes evidence at work.

The questions about credit are the ones people underrate. Several here ask who taught you something and whether you ever told them, and that phrasing is doing work. In three experiments, people wrote gratitude letters and predicted how the recipient would feel; the recipients then reported how it actually felt. Expressers underestimated how surprised recipients would be about why they were grateful, overestimated how awkward recipients would feel, and underestimated how positive they would feel. Expected awkwardness and expected mood were both correlated with whether people were willing to express gratitude at all. So the awkwardness that stops someone saying it out loud in front of colleagues is, on this evidence, mostly their own.

None of this needs the people in the room to get on. If they do, and the questions carry past the end of the meeting, the party games for adults set is the one written for the part of the evening where nobody is anybody's manager any more.

Kardas, Kumar & Epley (2022), Overly shallow?: Miscalibrated expectations create a barrier to deeper conversation, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · source
Edmondson (1999), Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams, Administrative Science Quarterly · source
Cooney, Mastroianni, Abi-Esber & Brooks (2020), The many minds problem: disclosure in dyadic versus group conversation, Current Opinion in Psychology · source
Kumar & Epley (2018), Undervaluing gratitude: expressers misunderstand the consequences of showing appreciation, Psychological Science · source

If you need to fill fifteen minutes for forty people on a video call, close this page. A question list is the wrong shape for that job: forty people cannot each answer anything in fifteen minutes, most of them are on mute, and what the slot actually needs is a structured activity with a mechanic — breakout rooms, a poll, two truths and a lie, something that survives being explained once to a large silent grid. A facilitator's deck of icebreaker games does that better than we ever will. This works at the other size: a standing team, a new joiner's first week, the first ten minutes of a retro — small enough that everyone in the room will actually speak.

Last checked 28 August 2026.