It's (Again) Psychology, Stupid!

Last week presented a compelling scene: two political figures who had spent months in open confrontation suddenly appearing side by side, cordial and conciliatory, asserting common ground.

While unexpected to many, this harmony follows psychological patterns relevant to corporate leadership.

President Trump utilized ‘co-optation’, the process of absorbing an opponent into one’s apparatus to neutralize a threat while reinforcing one’s status. Respecting the aesthetics of victory over ideology, Trump validated Zohran Mamdani as a fellow ‘anti-establishment winner’ and positioned himself as the magnanimous validator: ‘He really ran an incredible race against a lot of smart people.’ The subtext: ‘he is different and smart like me, his elder.’ 

When pressed on past accusations, Mamdani declined to engage in a purity contest. Instead, by avoiding ideological labels to focus on ‘the need to deliver affordability to New Yorkers,’ he ‘morally reframed’ the debate. Values (ideology, religion), which are typically rigid and polarizing, were replaced by universal stressors (pain, hunger, fear of crime). Under that lens, collaboration became a moral imperative rather than political capitulation. It allowed Trump to reciprocate, stating that he would ‘feel comfortable living in New York City under a Mamdani administration.’

Throughout the session, both men employed rigorous tactics to protect what sociologist Erving Goffman called the ‘expressive order’ – including, in this case, the shared agreement that they are serious professionals focused on solving a social crisis. Whenever reporters tried to break this dynamic, the two politicians used elaborate ’face-work’ (deflection, compliments, subject change) to maintain the order: ‘I’ve been called much worse than a despot. It’s not that insulting’ said President Trump. No big deal.

To reconcile aggressive campaign rhetoric with current cooperation, both engaged in ‘cognitive dissonance repair.’ They edited their narratives to focus on New Yorkers’ concrete burdens, allowing their respective selves to remain coherent. The result was a temporary alliance ritual in which the press corps functioned as a ‘third party’, an audience compelling them into ‘front-stage’ adult behavior.

Even as deep geopolitical fissures emerged over the Middle East, both men utilized ‘compartmentalization.’ They successfully parked these issues to preserve their tactical partnership: ‘[We] focused not on places of disagreement, which there are many, [but] on the shared purpose.’

The public truce observed between these two politicians, however superficial and temporary, illustrated how adversaries can collaborate when status and narrative coherence are safeguarded.

Failing to do so may result in a situation exemplified by the Trump-Zelensky Oval Office meeting in February. With neither side willing to validate the other’s narrative and instead correcting each other, the expressive order collapsed, statuses were challenged, substance was taken over by form, and the meeting disintegrated into a raw power struggle.

Even in deep conflictual settings, there are paths forward for those who can read, manage, and leverage the psychology of the room.