Read the learning notes below for Week 4 of the course. Once you read the materials below complete post 4.3. Follow the instructions for the learning activity to gain understanding and interact with the related material for greater understanding of the Week 4 Strategic Leadership principles outlined.
Post 4.3
Subjectivity and Intuition
In addition to the learning styles and approaches mentioned in Lesson 4.1, there are more complex styles to consider. For example, learning can be subjective or intuitive.
Subjective thinking has no objective standard guiding it and is subject to the interpretation of the individual with no objective reference to prove the thinking is logical or objective in nature. Thinking based on emotion and personal preference rather than rational logic. (http://complexitylabs.io/subjective-thinking/) To put it bluntly, the reasoning is all in their head. (JIBC, p. 1)
There is a place for subjective thinking. It is generally in the realm of books, movies, video games and art, where the subjective interpretation of the material under review affects/effects the speaker and reflects their preferences. When there is a need for a balanced view in making decisions and move teams toward strategic goals, objectivity is preferred.
For the subjective thinker, leaders need to ask questions regarding the objectivity of what is shared. Is there an objective proof behind what is said, or why they believe what they say they believe. A strong subjective thinker can derail teams with very little effort, for what they lack in objective reasoning they more than make up in passion.
According to Higson and Sturgess (2018), ‘approaches to decision making can be quite diverse, ranging from classical, rationalistic, decision making processes to a less structured, intuitive, decision making style.’ Additionally, they note:
‘Rational decision making processes consist of a sequence of steps designed to rationally develop a desired solution. Intuitive decision making is almost the opposite, being more instinctive, subjective and subconscious in nature.’ (the-happy-manager.com)
They continue to make the point that knowing which type of decision making is essential for effective decision making is an important part of the team development process. They state however, the importance of knowing how and when to combine rational and intuitive approaches as an essential part of leading strategically. (the-happy-manager.com) The central focus for all leaders is to know when to listen and when to decide on objective support for ideas over subjective intuition.
The key action for the leader facing subjective or intuitive thinkers is listening. Listen, weigh the options and decide based on the best evidence. Your subjective and intuitive thinkers may just surprise everyone.
No discussion on thinking and learning strategically is complete without a discussion on inevitable bias and communication distrust.
Inevitable Bias
We all live with some form of bias in any given situation. An inevitable bias leads toward inevitable outcomes based on predetermined bias, whether conscious or unconscious, in foresight or hindsight. The bias shapes the outcome, except it may not be planned as bias, simply unfolds as bias because of the opinions held by the person(s) investigating the facts or evidence set before them.
Psychological bias leads people to downplay the probability and danger of change, and their role in it, while increasing their perceived incentives to maintain the status quo, and to blame problems on others. (Johnson and Levin, p. 1593)
To determine how inevitable bias affects your perceptions and thinking take the Implicit Association test (IAT) @ https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/canada/. There are a variety of choices for you to make to test your biases toward a variety of topics. There is no expectation for you to share the results of the IAT, but only ex[pose you to possible biases you might hold and allow you to assess your own thinking in this regard.
Communication Distrust
Communication distrust rarely shows itself aggressively in a work environment. As Glenn Llopis outlines in his January 2011 Forbes Leadership article entitled ‘How distrust, indifference and lack of integrity will destroy your business,’
Distrust will not show itself in obvious fashion because distrust knows it is not welcome. It will hide and only become visible to those with the skill to see beneath the obvious. The ability to spot the weed of distrust is not simple, but all weeds of this nature look alike. (Llopis)
Communication distrust lies below the surface and only rears its head when it feels safe to do so and cause the greatest damage to organizational or relationship structures. Distrust plants its own seeds through every interaction. The only way to combat it is to act in the best interests of all concerned and create trusting environments through open dialogue and transparency throughout.
Post 4.3
Subjectivity and Intuition
Unit Learning Outcomes
Upon completion of post 4.3 learners will be able to:
- Understand the impact subjective and intuitive learning styles have on organizational decision making.
- Gain insight into the effect bias and distrust has on corporate decision making and remedies to reverse them.
Reflective Questions and Activity.
To determine the climate you live in, look beneath the details of your company meetings. Personally assess your environment using the following scale suggested by Llopis.
Create a new post on your blog and respond to the following questions (remember to maintain confidentiality):
- What political undercurrents exist? Why do you say that? What evidence do you have?
- Do your leaders merely make expected power plays, puffing themselves up and blowing smoke to cover up the truth? Yes or no? Why do you say that? What evidence do you have?
- Can the leaders be trusted and do they trust the workers? Yes or no? Why do you say that? What evidence do you have?
- Are the discussion topics in the meeting subjective, vague, and seasoned with optimism? Yesor no? Why do you say that? What evidence do you have?
- Are the discussion topics in the meeting objective and supported by observations from the workplace? Yes or no? Why do you say that? What evidence do you have?
Categories for this post
- ldrs501
- post 4.3
References
Baum, J. C., & Lampel, J. (2010). The Globalization Of Strategy Research. Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Blanding, M. (2012). Strategic intelligence: adapt or die. Working Knowledge. Boston MA: Harvard. Retrieved from https://hbswk.hbs.edu/item/strategic-intelligence-adapt-or-die
Complexity Labs. (September 8, 2016). Subjective Thinking. Complexity Labs. Barcelona: Complexity Labs. Retrieved from http://complexitylabs.io/subjective-thinking/
Dalkir, K. (2016). Editorial: Why do organizations need to increase their strategic intelligence quotient (IQ)? Information Science. 45 (3). Brasilia BR: Brazilian Institute of Information in Science and Technology. Retrieved from http://revista.ibict.br/ciinf/article/viewFile/4065/3562
Doyle, A. (updated January 23, 2018). Learn why employers value deductive reasoning, and how you can show it. New York: The Balance. Retrieved from https://www.thebalance.com/deductive-reasoning-definition-with-examples-2063749
—– (updated September 22, 2017). Inductive reasoning in the workplace. New York: The Balance. Retrieved from https://www.thebalance.com/inductive-reasoning-definition-with-examples-2059683
Fitzgerald, F. S. (Spring 1936). The crack up. Esquire. New York: Hearst.
Galbraith, J. (1974). Organization design: an information processing view. The Institute of Management Sciences. Vol. 4, pp. 28-36. Catonsville MD: INFORMS.
Gilakjani, A. P. (2012). Visual, auditory, kinaesthetic learning styles and
their impacts on English language teaching. Journal of Studies in Education. 2(1). Macrothink Institute: Las Vegas, NV.
Higson, P., and Sturgess, A. (1999). Intuition and Decision Making. The Happy Manager. London: Apex Leadership. Retrieved from http://the-happy-manager.com/articles/intuition-and-decision-making/
Johnson, D., and Levin, S. (December 10, 2009). The tragedy of cognition: psychological biases and environmental inaction. Current Science. 97(11). Bangalore, India: Current Science Association. Retrieved from http://dominicdpjohnson.com/publications/pdf/2009JohnsonLevinTheTragedyOfCognition.pdf
Justice Institute of BC. (April 8, 2013). Subjective vs. objective. School of Community and Social Justice. Vancouver BC: Centre for Leadership. Retrieved from http://www.jibc.ca/sites/default/files/community_social_justice/pdf/cl/Objective_vs._Subjective.pdf
Kaufman, R. (2014). Characteristics of Useful and Practical Organizational Strategic Plans. Educational Technology, 54(1), 37-39. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/44430235
King, W. R. (March 1978). Strategic planning for management information systems. MIS Quarterly. Minneapolis MN: University of Minnesota. Retrieved from https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/3e9d/c86eec51d0e3444be59f2887c384e2ff0258.pdf
Llopis, G. (January 27, 2011). How distrust, indifference and lack of integrity will destroy your business. Forbes. Jersey City NJ: Forbes.com. Retrieved from https://www.forbes.com/sites/glennllopis/2011/01/17/how-distrust-indifference-and-lack-of-integrity-will-destroy-your-business/#2e50b7a36a42
Milgram, J. (January 3, 2018). Left and right brain—the surprising truth [INFOGRAPHIC]. London: Custom Writing. Retrieved from https://custom-writing.org/blog/left-vs-right-brain
OnStrategy. (2018). About us. Retrieved from https://onstrategyhq.com/about-us/
Perkins, K. (2018). The top 10 strategic planning best practices. Reno NV: OnStrategy. Retrieved from https://onstrategyhq.com/resources/the-top-10-strategic-planning-best-practices/
Project Implicit. (2018) Implicit Association Test. Boston MA: Harvard University. Retrieved from https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/Canada/