POLITICAL THINKING

There’s are all kinds of thinking. In the book Executive Thinking (2018) I made a pretty extensive list of the many, many kinds and variations there are in what we generally call “thinking.” Of courses, that book was primarily about high quality of executive thinking that we call critical thinking. After that I wrote about Thinking as a Modeler (2019), then Hypnotic Thinking (2020, and more recently have completed another work, Humorous Thinking (2020).

Then there is political thinking. While I did not formulate the book Political Coaching (2015) in terms of the kind of thinking that an emotionally healthy person (a self-actualizing person) would use, it is everywhere in the book. It is especially in chapter 7 on Political Strategies and Skills. What does good, healthy “political thinking” consist of? What is it like?

A strange fact about politics is that politics are all about relationships— how we get along with each other, how we organize ourselves, manage our activities, allocate our resources, make decisions, etc.— this is the subject matter of political thinking. This is true when you are engaged in political thinking about office politics, business politics, or national politics. Now behind your political thinking will be your beliefs, assumptions, understandings, etc. about people, human nature, groups, power, group functioning, persuasion, etc. You will operate either from Theory X or Theory Y of human motivation.

Theory X politics describes how politics has operated for thousands of years. It assumes that people cannot be trusted, people are not responsible, people will naturally lie, steal, deceive, manipulate as they work in a zero-sum game in a win/lose context. And if you expect people to behave that way, you will want all the control and power you can get to control them. You will design things so that they are dependent on you. In that way you can get them to do what you want them to do. That kind of political thinking is the problem. It is what needs to change.

Theory Y political thinking is very different. It believes that people have a higher nature, are driven by higher being-needs for purpose, meaning, responsibility, collaboration, contribution, ethics, excellence, etc. This thinking inevitably leads to a very different mind-set. The very best and highest form of political thinking of a self-actualizing person involves the following:

Synergistic thinking — collaboration, winning minds, building teams.

Contextual thinking — recognizing current environment, trends, systems, history.

Vision thinking — compelling objectives, concentrated focus, strategy.

Value thinking — quality values, criteria, standards.

Power thinking — recognize political dynamics, power brokers, separation of powers.

Stability thinking — safety in social order, rule of law.

Difference thinking — diversity for richness, productive conflict.

Intolerance thinking — against corruption, lies, deceptions, scandals, violence, chaos.

Transparent thinking — openness, vulnerability, authenticity.

Integrity thinking — fulfilling promises, trust building.

Diplomacy thinking — empathy, emotional warmth, winsome.

Flexibility thinking — willingness to adjust and adapt.

Decisive thinking — intelligent decisions, bringing people into the process.

Consequential thinking — anticipating political fallout, unintended consequences.

Negotiation thinking — principle bargaining for win/win relationships.

Long-term thinking — how processes work over time.

The best political thinking entails being able to recognize the political environment— who are the power brokers, the factors that influence thinking and deciding, the need for collaborating, and the consequences for failure to cooperate. Against that environment, one then thinks in terms of goals, objectives, visions— Who do we want to be together? What do we want to accomplish together? What future do we want to co-create?

Differences in those objectives result in different people holding to different agendas and therefore working to attempt to influence things so that one’s agenda can win acceptance. Now we have a power struggle— which is what we mostly recognize about politics. Some want to go in one direction; others wanting to go in another direction. What kind of political conversations can we create— discussion, dialogue, debate, etc.— so that we can work through our different understandings and co-influence each other and thereby create win/win resolutions?

For that kind of win/win resolutions we need an orderly and respectful way to work through conflicts—we need productive conflicting skills. This will require transparency, respect, diplomacy, flexibility, long-term thinking, consequential thinking, and integrity. [For such skills, see the chapters on it in Group and Team Coaching, Games Great Lovers Play.]

As an aside, I wrote this four weeks ago, long before the first presidential debate. And what we had in that so-called debate was more of a shouting match of talking points on both sides. We also had some loaded questions by the moderator—which if the President had gone slower and spent more time listening, he could have heard the loaded frames and then address them. To have a healthy and respectful political conversations, we all need to shift our thinking away from win/lose and focus much more on seeking first to understand.

Instead of asking, “Who won the debate?” we should be asking, “Who learned something?” “Who gained a more empathetic understanding of his rival?” As long as our political thinking is based on the metaphor of scoring points, winning a battle, defeating an enemy— our politics will be harsh, polarized, and self-defeating. When we shift to a metaphor of being respectful, engaging in learning, and seeking wisdom— then our political thinking will serve us. This will be true for politics in the home, at work, and in the nation.