Friday, October 4, 2019
Thinking and Decision Making Essay Example for Free
Thinking and Decision Making Essay The following are the three different styles of thinking that would be discussed in this paper a) Pragmatists, b) Synthesists and c) Realists. Pragmatists: People possessing this thinking style are practical thinkers. They do not believe in making long-term plans or setting long term goals. Rather they set small goals to be accomplished in a short phase of time. So their penchant for quick results means they divide the long-term goals in different parts and accomplish them one by one, which gives them a sense of achievement from time to time. They are very quick at acknowledging others’ ideas and possess a good sense of humor. They consider conflicts as a means of understanding other people’s viewpoint and make maximum use of it by brainstorming and experimenting its impact. Since they try to make use of every situation, good or bad they are very creative in nature. They easily adopt any strategy that suits the situation or has the potential for success or further growth. They are innovative and pay attention to minute details as they think that every minute step or detail play a significant part in the larger picture. They have the zeal and stamina of accomplishing their goals, come what may and also have the potential to make others believe that what they are doing is right. This style of thinking is what makes one a leader. They convince everyone about their vision by moulding the same idea in different ways so that it looks convincing enough to everyone. They plan the risks beforehand so there is little chance of them not being able to handle a crisis situation. Synthesists: The people belonging to this style of thinking love arguments and conflicts. They do not have the patience to wait for the conflict to get fully blown up. So they try to trigger up the trouble so that the problem gets solved as soon as possible rather than waiting for it to gradually come in full force. Even when there is not much conflict or commotion in a particular situation, they find one point or the other to be satirically amused or skeptical. In conflict situation they observe both the sides of the argument and come up with a new angle or idea. Hence this style of thinking helps in building good observation skills and fuelling creativity. Synthesists want to grasp all that is going in a person’s mind. They are smart enough to understand but still in order to let the person open up, they start a debate then quietly observe his feelings. They love to ruffle up hidden reactions. People possessing this style of thinking don’t set aside others’ ideas. Rather analyze different viewpoints to understand a situation well. Synthesists style of thinking makes a person good at speculation. They have the ability to brainstorm and come to different solutions or reactions of a situation, which can be termed a creative activity. So nothing surprises them much, because their minds are engaged in so much of speculation that nothing is unexpected for them. Realists: The people possessing this type of thinking style are ‘no-nonsense’ kind of people. They are frank, forceful and direct. Instead of relying on others’ point of view, they rely on themselves the most to discover things. They are always engaged in empirical discoveries and love concrete facts. In order to handle a crisis or conflict situation they ask straight questions. They always know where they are heading because they have a set objective, know what resources they have at hand and have the capability of analyzing how those resources could be used in the best possible way. They very well know their strong and weak points and do not hesitate to take outside help in areas where they are not capable enough. They break a problem into several logical parts and then solve them one by one. They calmly handle situations but can get aggressive if someone or something is very ambiguous or unrealistic. If the three styles of thinking are compared and contrasted then it is quite evident that the three of them overlap in certain areas while are poles apart in others. Both pragmatists and synthesist’s believe in quick solutions. Both these styles of thinking facilitate creativity. Goodbrand had described pragmatists in the following way: â€Å"they dont shy away from conflict but neither do they relish it like the synthesist.†(para.24) This aptly brings out the contrast between the two.            Like realists, pragmatists have a definite goal and they too break the task into small targets and try to accomplish them systematically. Both the styles of thinking believe in acknowledging any outside idea that has been used in the process of thinking. Both these styles of thinking oozes confidence and strong will power. While people of pragmatist style of thinking are good tacticians and find one or the other way to get a task done, the realistic styles of thinkers are very frank and straightforward. It is difficult for them to use any tactics rather; they propagate the ‘matter of fact’ aspect of getting a task done.            The following qualities are common in both realist and synthesist style of thinking: â€Å"Understanding that people see situations from their own perspective and that all perspectives have their own viewpoints and that as much can be learned from looking at a situation from another viewpoint as can be learned from looking at it through your own eyes.†(Goodbrand, para15) However, where synthesists believe in speculation, realists believe in matter of fact and empirical evidence. Also, in order to get other’s point of view or a hidden fact synthesists might ask ambiguous or dumb-smart questions. The realists abhor ambiguity.            Since critical thinking means dividing information into categories and sub categories, realist and pragmatist style of thinking affect critical thinking because both these styles of thinking focus on this format of problem solving or target achievement. Since one of the steps of critical thinking is synthesis, synthesist style of thinking naturally has an affect on it too.            In the workplace scenario the process of decision-making involves the following three steps: a) intelligence, b) design and c) choice. According To Rue and Byars (1992, p.52) â€Å"The intelligence stage involves searching the environment for conditions requiring a decision. The design stage entails inventing, developing and analyzing possible courses of action. Choice, the final stage, refers to the actual selection of a course of action.†The different stages of critical thinking overlap with the decision making process. In workplace conflict the motive of both decision-making and critical thinking is to bring an end to the problem.            The three styles of thinking discussed in this paper can be explained in the context of critical thinking and decision making by the help of the following workplace example: An organization’s, departmental head is under pressure by the conflict between his two colleagues. He wants to bring this conflict to an end because it affects the work of the whole department. Now we assume that he has the pragmatist style of thinking, he would use tactics to end the problem. He would try to speak to both the subordinates separately and try to mould them to come to a common viewpoint and settle their conflicts. He would find out who of the two is less rigid and try to convince him that if he behaves more rationally then the whole department would benefit. He will not try to jump in the problem but wait for the right time to confront both of them together. On the other hand if he has the synthesist style of thinking he would not wait for the problem to aggravate further. Rather he would try to coax them to speak up their mind and let them argue. He would consider this argument as an opportunity to observe both the sides of the story. Then he would critically analyze the whole situation and decide their further course of action. If the departmental head thinks from a realistic angle he would ask both the parties to have a meeting with him and would fire straight questions to them to get the entire reason of the conflict. Then on the basis of the concrete fact he would try to come to a decision in the best possible way and calmly sort out the problem between the subordinates by dealing with each aspect of their problem one at a time. References Rue, L.W., Byars, L.L. (6 Ed.). (1992). Management Skills And Application. USA: IRWIN. Goodbrand, A.D. (1997) The Art of Thinking. Retrieved Jun. 28, 2007 from http://sern.ucalgary.ca/courses      /seng/698/alang/minor.html Wikipedia. (2007) Critical thinking. Retrieved Jun. 28, 2007 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_       Thinking
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.