Problem solving will be an integral part of your job out in the
"real" world. Understanding the process of thinking is an
essential part of problem solving. Different people do not think the same way, and
understanding the different methods of thinking can be useful both to you as an individual
and in harnessing all the potential power of team problem solving. Seeing things from
different experiences and perspectives is helpful in the problem solving process.
The Art of Thinking by Allen Harrison and Robert Bramson
(1985) provides much information about the different way that people think and how to use
these differences to advantage. The following concepts are been condensed from this book.
Harrison and Bramson (1985) classified 5 different styles
of thinking:
The Synthesis - sees likeness in apparent unlikes, sees conflict,
interested in change.
The Idealist-
welcomes a broad range of views, seeks ideal solutions.
The Pragmatist - "whatever works" - seeks shortest route to payoff
The Analyst
- seeks one "best way", interested in scientific solutions.
The Realist
- relies on facts and expert opinions, interested in concrete results.
About 50% of the people think about things only in one
way and about 35% of the people use two of the above approaches. Only about 3% are
three-way thinkers. Knowing and understanding your style of thinking and that of those you
work with is helpful to improve teamwork within a group. Learning to distinguish and
choose the right style of thinking for a given situation can improve your problem solving
skills.
There is no "best" style of thinking, since
each has its own strengths the weaknesses.
The synthesist :
- takes an integrated view
- sees likeness in apparent unlikes
- interested in change
- is speculative
- sees data as meaningless without interpretation
The idealist:
- takes an assimilative or holistic view
- welcomes a broad range if views
- seeks the ideal solution
- interested in values
- receptive
- sees data and theory of equal value
The pragmatist:
- takes an eclectic view
- looks for whatever works
- seeks the shortest route to solution
- interested in innovation
- adaptive
- accepts any data or theory that "gets us there"
The analyst:
- uses formal logic and deduction
- seeks on "best way"
- interested in scientific solutions
- prescriptive
- takes theory and method over data
The realist:
- takes an empirical view
- relies on facts and expert opinion
- seeks solutions that meet current needs
- interested in concrete results
- corrective
- takes data over theory
Each of these styles of thinks have their own strengths
and weaknesses, as illustrated in the following table:
| Style |
Strengths |
Weaknesses |
| Synthsist |
focuses on underlying
assumptions; points out abstract conceptual aspects; good at preventing over agreement;
provides debate and creativity; best in controversial situations. |
may screen out agreement; may
try too hard for change and newness; may seek conflict unnecessarily; may theorize
excessively; can appear uncommitted; |
| Idealist |
focus is on process,
relationships; points out values and aspirations; good at articulating goals; provides
broad view, goals and standards; best in unstructured, value laden situations |
may screen out hard data, may
delay from too many choices; and try too hard for perfect solution; may overlook details;
can appear overly sentimental |
| Pragmatist |
focus on payoff; points out
tactics and strategy; ; good at identifying impacts; provides experiment and innovation;
best in complex incremental situations |
may screen out long range
aspects;; may rush too quickly to payoff; may try too hard for expediency; may rely too
much on what sells; can appear over-compromising |
| Analyst |
focus on method and plan;
points out data and details; good at model building; provides stability and structure;
best in structure, calculatable situations |
may screen out values; may over
analyze and over plan; may try too hard for predictability: may be inflexible, overly
cautious; can appear tunnel visioned |
| Realist |
focus on facts and results;
points out resources and realities; good at simplification; provides drive and momentum;
best in well-defined, objective situations |
may screen out disagreement;
may rush to oversimplified solutions ; may try too hard for consensus; may overemphasize
perceived facts; can appear too results-orients |
The following approaches can help you extend your
thinking strategies:
To become more of a Synthesist:
- practice listening for conflict and disagreement
- ask dumb-smart questions
- develop the third party observer viewpoint
- look for relationships between things that have no
apparent similarity
- practice improving our tolerance for eccentric behavior
- when someone appears to come out of left field, listen
carefully
- practice negative analysis
To become more of an Analyst
- focus on the long range
- focus on the whole, not one "best way"
- think about high standards
- listen for value statements and aspirations
- try to fit a number of different ideas into a single
framework
- encourage others to express their aspirations
To become more of a Pragmatist
- practice thinking incrementally
- encourage others to experiment and try to enter into this
activity
- look for the short range payoff
- learn to thing tactically
- practice being marketing
To become a better Analyst
- sharpen up you statistical skills
- learn to gather more data before making a decision
- learn to make a flow-chart
- pay greater attention to detail
- focus on constraints
To become a better Realist
- focus on concrete results
- focus on resources
- practice getting to the point quickly
- practice short, declarative statements
- learn to paraphrase for precision
- practice incisiveness
|
