Collective Decision-making from Different Perspectives

Differing Thinkers in a Familiar Organization

AA – Deductive Thinker

• Adamant about strategies that are relevant
• Is not easily swayed to other points of view
• Will pursue own goals relentlessly
• Disengages when needing to involve others or compromise
• Talks a lot about own ideas

AB – Deductive Thinker

• Logical thinker and follows simple plans
• Does not get emotionally involved in assisting students
• Wants a clear plan to most actions
• Will pursue own goals passionately
• Points out flaws in the contributions of others

AC – Deductive Thinker

• Silent but not easily drawn into plans from others
• Clearly states limits of personal contributions
• Allocates/delegates but claims own tasks first
• Minimalist in contributions throughout school
• Keeps records to remind others of who has done what

AD – Inductive Thinker

• Thinks about how others are feeling
• Helping others in various areas around the school
• Quiet in meetings but politely answers when asked
• Problem solves in less conventional ways for students

Appreciating Differences through Collaboration

Deductive thinkers begin with an hypothesis and then conducts research to prove the accuracy of this theory. “Deductive reasoning is more narrow and is generally used to test or confirm hypotheses” (Crossman, 2018, para. 8).  For colleagues who are take a more deductive approach, the following list contains some suggestions for working more considerately with their dominant tendencies toward deductive thinking:

• Present a linear plan that can connect the dots logically and externally (belief proves outcomes).
• Base decisions on facts that are data-driven since change comes from beliefs but require options for flexibility.
• Buy-in will increase involvement which will help to achieve results or drive change (belief proves outcomes).
• Assign the data/logical/linear portions to deductive thinkers to satisfy their need to see the possibility of the results they want.
• Increase their capacity to see the details of inductive thinkers by facilitating collaboration and requiring compromise where possible/necessary.
• Keep in mind the MVV of the organization so decisions and selected solutions support the goals.

Inductive thinkers gather and analyze data first then follow through to the theory.  “By nature, inductive reasoning is more open-ended and exploratory, especially during the early stages.” (Crossman, 2018, para. 8).

• Draw out their observational data to include in planning (Crossman, 2018, para. 1).
• Take more time to discuss information that may impact data-based decisions.
• Increase the validity of observational contributions to embed flexibility for decisions that involve people, especially developing students.
• Include more data-driven decision-making opportunities when trying to develop the big picture for the organization and ensuing decisions.
• Remind inductive thinkers to consider the MVV of the organization.

Changing Interactions to Increase Collaborative Productivity

• Consider their perspective and dominant working style when conversing or requesting
• Get to know them personally to understand the factors impinging on their lives outside of work.
• Ask for contributions—always be part of the conversation.
• Create multi-facetted teams (inductive and deductive together) to broaden perspectives and think more inclusively. Both inductive and deductive thinkers require facts and use logic and should somehow be able to meet in the middle
• Remind all participants that these are the students in our classrooms.
  1. Walk & talk should match; we must practice what we preach.
  2. Listen more; hear what is being said.
  3. Wait before responding.
  4. Can you work in this plan/program/project?

Since we all work in schools, we are part of a large on-going social process in which both theory and research play a part in daily decisions.  Whether we are deductive (top-down) or inductive (bottom-up), both are needed to create a learning environment that will meet the d=needs of diverse learners.  “Most social research, however, involves both inductive and deductive reasoning throughout the research process (Farnam, 2018, para. 8).

Schools need flexibility and adaptability because they are focused on developing people.  Decisions, however, must be based on data to maintain integrity, coherence, and more predictable growth patterns.  Logical decisions based on data for site-specific situations require leadership accountability. “To lead is to recognize the level or accountability and responsibility for the position and process” (Atha, 2018, para. 2).  Humility is necessary for both perspectives and to make decisions from each perspective.

Questions

Are inductive thinkers more introverted people with deductive thinkers more extroverted?

Do deductive thinkers work together with greater unity due to reliance on belief for proving outcomes?

References

Atha, D. (2018).  Seeing things the way God sees them. Retrieved October 29, 2018 from https://create.twu.ca/ldrs501/week-4-post-4-2/

Crossman, A. (July 23, 2018) Deductive vs inductive reasoning: Two different approaches to scientific research. Retrieved October 30, 2018 from https://www.thoughtco.com/deductive-vs-inductive-reasoning-3026549

Farnam Street. (2018). Deductive vs inductive reasoning: Make smarter arguments, better decisions, and stronger conclusions. Retrieved October 30, 2018 from https://fs.blog/2018/05/deductive-inductive-reasoning/