I'm prompted to post this by someone (another coach) saying that one of the key techniques to learn in politics is "limiting disclosure". I understand why they would say that - it seems very sensible - but I want to explain why I don't think it is very helpful. I'm picking up a theme of previous posts about politics that often the real issue is getting people to engage in politics at all. And that is about managing negative assumptions and an unhelpful mindset about politics, ie managing the (emotional) limbic brain not the rational neo-cortex.
I find that for many executives I coach, their mindset means the real issue is not disclosing enough. For example, they want a promotion, but don't disclose this to anyone - least of all anyone who could help them get it! Or they talk a lot about what "should" happen in the business, ie the speak their mind openly, but they say little about their true concerns, ie they say nothing from the heart. From the outside they look closed and self-serving - just like the "Foxes" they accuse others of being (see earlier post for the "political animals" model).
I've also reflected on the neurobiological impact of focusing on "limiting disclosure". Focusing on not doing something because it is dangerous represents a threat at the limbic level. The limbic response (which is quite unconscious) will both cause withdrawal, re-inforcing the mindset of "I don't want to play the political game", and will also literally reduce your ability to think creatively (using your Pre-Frontal Cortex) about what to do. Actions will be habitual rather than creative. And the habit is not to act politically!
A better focus, which addresses both these drawbacks, is "intentional disclosure". This is a positive (attractive) word so avoids the negative limbic response. It also encourages positive action to disclose, and to disclose the right things. Perfect!
