Second-Order Thinking
Parrish makes the case for deploying second order thinking (Chapter 5, the Great Mental Models, Vol. 1)
He explains the idea so:
“Almost everyone can anticipate the immediate results of their actions. This type of first-order thinking is easy to ensure you get the same results that everyone else gets. Second-order thinking is thinking farther ahead and thinking holistically. It requires us to not only consider our actions and their immediate consequences but the subsequent effects of those actions as well. Failing to consider our second – and third – order effects can unleash disaster”
What happens when you ignore the idea
It’s a key idea that lobbyists need to take on board. From my 20 plus years in Brussels, it’s an idea that still appears alien to many.
Example 1
I remember reading the memoirs of a Conservative Minister who was loyal to the Prime Minister. A CEO flew into the meet the Prime Minister and demanded the Minister be fired for the position the Minister took on a file. That the position was Party policy seemed not to matter. The Prime Minister listed politely to the unsubtle calls for the Minister’s head. After the CEO departed, the Prime Minister called in the Minister, explained bemusedly what had happened, and told the Minister, they had the post as long as the Minister wanted it. Unsurprisingly, the Minister’s positioning did not change and the Prime Minister backed up the Minister. When I met the Minister one day, I asked about the case, and they kindly filled in the details.
Example 2
On my first day on the job in DG Environment, I was tasked with drafting a reply to a group of American companies who wrote to the then Commissioner, Wallstrom, that the Commission had never listened to them, answered their questions, or met them on a legislative file.
After several hours later working through the antiquated filing system, I completed the reply. The Commission had met this group many times, answered all their many questions by email and letter, and dealt with many phone calls.
Example 3
A more traditional response is to argue in one to one meetings, that if the measure is adopted, the company will leave the EU and close down all their activity. This line has been so used for so long with no follow through, that it does not sway serious policymakers.
The first time I encountered this line, when working on a piece of air pollution legislation, my scepticism that the company would follow through on their disinvestment in the EU was justified as soon as the law was adopted. They upped their investment in the EU.
Finally, I have given up counting the instances of where delaying action, simply leads to tougher legislation being tabled and adopted a few years later. Decisions are all too often without the realisation that the second – and third – order impacts of blocking change will, in many cases, lead to far worse happening down the line.
Trust
A good lobbyist has to consider the effects of the effects of their actions. As Parrish states “ trust and trustworthiness are the results of multiple interactions”. It’s vital never to disclose a source of confidence. If you do, it will quickly ruin you. It takes just one mistake to loose hard earned trust.
Second-order thinking is a useful model to deploy when you prepare your positioning. It makes sense to not only consider the first order impact of a proposal but also to consider the second and third order consequences. Given that officials and politicians implicitly look for those points, it makes sense to point them out. Highlighting these ‘unitended consequences’, both positive and negative, is just good public policy. It’s raised in the Better Regulation Guidelines.
As Parrish concludes “a little time spent thinking ahead can save us massive amounts of time later”.