The Psychology of Presidential Decisions

A core responsibility of leaders is to erase the gap between what people say behind their backs and to their faces.

I hope it goes without saying that I stand against violence in all forms. Full stop.

For the record, I’m registered as an independent voter. If it were up to me, we wouldn’t have political parties at all—we would cast votes issue by issue. Then we would elect leaders not based on ideology, but rather by judging their character and competence to implement the policies supported by the people.

As a result, I don’t often post about politics. However, I make exceptions when my expertise as an organizational psychologist is relevant to current events. After watching the aftermath of the first presidential debate, I’ve written two articles:

1. The Reason People Are Not Telling Biden the Truth

A major barrier to wise decisions is groupthink. Weak leaders stifle dissent and leave themselves weaker. Strong leaders welcome dissent and make themselves stronger.

2. There’s A Name for the Trap Biden Faces

Too often, instead of rethinking questionable decisions, leaders fall victim to escalation of commitment. More than sunk costs, it’s a matter of ego and emotions: it feels better to be a fighter than a quitter. But walking away from a losing battle is not a failure of grit—it’s a triumph of wisdom.

3. To put American politics in a broader global context, I talked with my favorite thinker on geopolitics, Ian Bremmer. He introduced me to the notion that just as economies go through boom and bust cycles, political systems can too: Apple | Spotify | Transcript

For those of you looking for something lighter, I had a delightful conversation with linguist Anne Curzan about grammar pet peeves, Gen-Z slang, and the joy of being a word nerd: Apple | Spotify | Transcript

In solidarity,

Adam