After reading this article I was stunned at the points brought out by the author. The author is a dean of a business school and has a great amount of knowledge of how successful leaders think. Over a six year period he interviewed 50 different leaders. The main point illustrated in this article is that we need to quit emulating the exact actions of our really successful business leaders in the world. For example, he is suggesting that copying what Steve Jobs did at Apple over the years is misguiding and really not the point people need to understand about good leaders. The reason it’s misguiding is because each action by a successful leader is different in different situations and different businesses. This makes a whole lot of sense to me. Don’t we need to get into that person’s head and see how they process information and make decisions?
Superhero Predisposition
The author claims that good leader have one important trait and ability. They have the ability to hold two opposing ideas or viewpoints in their head at once. With these opposing views, they then have the ability to easily choose one without panicking. What this person does with the opposing viewpoints is coming up with a new idea based on the contents of each idea to make a separate but superior idea. This type of cognitive synthesis is called integrative thinking. This process is not debilitating to the individual and is just a natural state a good leader is typically in when decision-making. In chapter 9 of the textbook it talks about a leader’s general mental ability or IQ. The book says that good leaders tend to be smarter in IQ and EQ or emotional intelligence. Emotional intelligence is someone’s self-awareness, social skills, and motivation and is a huge factor in becoming a good leader. I would say EQ would directly tie into a person’s ability to think the way the author of this article describes it. The most effective leaders are book smart (IQ), but really effective leaders are really high in EQ (Bauer and Erdogan Ch. 12).
Can we learn to be Superheroes?
After an interview with Bob Young from Red Hat, a Linux-based open-source software company, the author tries to answer the question above. The answer is “yes.” When faced with really tough decisions Young wouldn’t settle for “either-or” choices. These “either-or” choices are what other companies decide to do. What is it that separates your company? This type of thinking is integrative thinking in action and made Bob Young stand out at his company and made it successful. Young took a step back and didn’t settle for the “easy road.” This takes patience and creativity.
The Process
A four-step decision-making process is vital in integrative thinking. First, one must determine salience or “which factors to take into account.” Integrative thinkers seek less obvious but potentially relevant factors. Conventional thinkers only focus on the obvious factors. Second, one must analyze causality. Conventional thinkers only consider linear relationships between variables. In contrast integrative thinkers consider nonlinear relationships among multiple variables. Third, one must envision the decision architecture. Integrative thinkers see potential problems holistically and how each part effects the decision. Conventional thinkers break each problem into pieces and separately work on each problem without regard to other parts. Finally, one must achieve a resolution. Integrative thinkers creatively resolve the preceding steps conflicts by integrating or generating innovative outcomes. Conventional thinkers make the “either-or” choice based on the pieces that they’ve funneled down to. It’s easy to see the differences from great leaders of business to the “average Joe” when broken down through cognitive decision-making process shown in this article.
Conclusion
This article directly ties in the premise of what Dr. Sheep has been trying to get us to do in MQM 221 from the beginning….that is to think outside the box and analyze the situation and come up with ways to reflect on our experiences. This line of abstract think and idea conceptualization seems to be the premise of our “Journal Entries” in class and our papers as a whole. Since it is possible to learn how to think this way, we need to take what we’ve learned in class and in this article to be future Superheroes of the business world!
Questions
How do you feel this about this type of thinking and how will you apply it to your future career?
Roger, Martin. "How Successful Leaders Think." Harvard Business Review 85.6 (2007): 60-67. Business Source Premier. Web. 20 Oct. 2011. <http://web.ebscohost.com.proxy.lib.ilstu.edu/bsi/detail?vid=3&hid=119&sid=d7248b48-470e-432f-bec3-3c8c9bc8f09c%40sessionmgr114&bdata=JnNpdGU9YnNpLWxpdmU%3d#db=buh&AN=24997966>.
2 comments:
I feel as if my current style of thinking is a mix of between integrative and conventional. Looking at something as a whole is extremely important when making decisions within an organization. I tend to evaluate things piece by piece, and I know that is something that I have to work on, but I feel like college is a time to learn the correct way to manage situations and attempt to evolve into the leader you hope to be in the future. Envisioning options overall is a proactive way of thinking I am trying to grasp onto. It make take some time, but I'm still in a learning stage, and even in the first few years of my career I will be tweaking my organizational strategies and behaviors.
-Kaitlin
This is a very interesting observation because there must be countless entrepreneurs in the world who have closely studied very successful entrepreneurs such as Steve Jobs and Bill Gates, and attempted to follow directly in their footsteps and then are flabbergasted when they do not achieve the same level of success as these billionaires.
Also the idea of making important, sometimes million dollar ideas quickly and easily without panicking really is what sets very successful leaders apart from everyone else. This is something that I would not normally think of, but it makes complete sense.
--Michael Lorimer
Post a Comment