Integrative thinking, as explained by Roger Martin in The Opposable Mind, can certainly be productive and beneficial. But how can such a process be taught in schools? Three suggestions come to mind.
First, recognize that integrative thinking is a creative thought process. My own research on creative thinking suggests that a pause—a temporary stopping of motion or movement toward application—is often needed for creative thinking. During this “pause,” the mind explores its understanding of some concept and re-forms that understanding into a fresh expression.
For example, Martin (2007) cites the founding of the Four Seasons line of hotels as an example of integrative thinking. If Isadore Sharp had decided to get into the lodging business and immediately proceeded to build a hotel, the better ideas that led development of the Four Seasons line would likely have never come to his mind. He made the decision and then allowed himself thinking time, time to consider the opposing ideas of large hotels with many amenities and smaller hotels with a friendly feel. By pausing, his creative thinking generated the superior ideas that guided his development of the Four Seasons.
This may be the most challenging aspect of engaging students in integrative (or any other creative) thinking. Time pressures drive us to often sacrifice depth for coverage. (By the way, check out this recent research on the depth vs. breadth argument!) However, research demonstrates again and again that increased thinking about a topic deepens learning. Engaging students in thinking aids learning! But the time factor—the “pause”—must be included in our considerations of instructional time usage.
Second, modeling integrative thinking provides a powerful learning experience for students. We can model integrative thinking by thinking-aloud in front of students. By voicing our thinking, we provide students with a reference point for their own thinking.
Finally, engaging students in integrative thinking can deepen learning and instill beneficial thinking skills. Take any instructional material that suggests opposing ideas and guide students through recognizing salience, identifying causality, structuring action, and achieving resolution. (Interesting how some critical thinking skills influence this creative thinking process!)
If students do not learn to think successfully they will be ill-equipped to live successfully. We need to be sure our instruction equips and engages students in various forms of thinking, such as integrative thinking. By helping them learn to think we can equip them to learn for the rest of their lives!
Up next, gestures! Several recent studies suggest engaging (or at least encouraging) students in gesturing can increase achievement. (See a previous posting on this topic here.) What do our hands know that our brains are not conscious of? Watch for the next posting soon!
Sources: Martin, R. (2007). The opposable mind: How successful leaders win through integrative thinking. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Showing posts with label integrative thinking. Show all posts
Showing posts with label integrative thinking. Show all posts
Friday, March 6, 2009
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Integrative Thinking, Part 5: Resolution
Salient elements of two opposing ideas are explored for causality while decisions regarding structure (or “architecture”) are delayed to enable form to truly reflect function. These integrative thinking steps lead to the final stage: resolution. (See the previous postings on this topic for information on salience, causality, and architecture.)
In The Opposable Mind, Roger Martin (2007) describes resolution as the “creative resolution of tensions” (p. 47). Opposing ideas contribute traits that merge to generate a new idea. The form created through such a merge establishes the resolution.
In Isadore Sharp’s experience, resolution produces a “system of reinforcing activities,” comprising mid-sized hotels with an intimate feel, superior staff attitude and customer service, consistency in implementation worldwide, and a focus on serving employees. Each element of the “system” strengthens the others to generate a model that thrives (p. 38).
Integrative thinking may be interesting to study, but how does it relate to teaching and learning? We’ll explore this in the next posting, but recent research suggests that increased teacher thinking could do much to improve the quality of instruction and depth of learning in our schools.
Martin, R. (2007). The opposable mind: How successful leaders win through integrative thinking. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Thursday, February 19, 2009
Integrative Thinking, Part 4: Architecture
Imagine building a house, but instead of a fixed, linear progression from foundation to final touches, you keep every stage fluid. One day you may focus on the roof but the next make changes to the floor plan that will influence the roof. And the next day you decide to make it a two-story house rather than having everything on one level. All these decisions keep your house in line with your vision for your home: a comfortable shelter that fosters interaction between its inhabitants.
Such fluidity would probably mean you’d be changing general contractors a few times and increasing your construction costs, but nothing would have to be fixed permanently in place until every element was just right. With integrative thinking, such fluidity characterizes the architecture of ideas as they move from the cognitive realm to the concrete world.
In The Opposable Mind, Roger Martin (2007) again uses Isadore Sharp’s approach to founding the Four Seasons line of hotels to illustrate this element. Normally, hoteliers determined the size of a hotel, defined the services to be offered, and hired the appropriate individuals to provide such services. Mr. Sharp chose a different route. He chose a principle, the “Golden Rule,” to serve as the reference point for designing the hotel’s physical and human resource needs.
By keeping the usual elements (e.g., hotel size) fluid, Sharp could adjust to align the physical and human resource elements with the organizing principle. As a result, he focused on medium-sized, intimate physical structures that offered superior service from carefully chosen and well-trained individuals. To stay true to the “Golden Rule,” Sharp decided against a customer service department, choosing instead to make every employee responsible for all aspects of customer service (p. 37-41).
Salient features of opposing ideas were examined for relationships of causality. These relationships led to a more fluid approach to the architecture as ideas moved to reality. And it all began with the willingness and intentional decision to entertain two seemingly conflicting ideas.
Next time, the final element of integrative thinking: resolution.
Martin, R. (2007). The opposable mind: How successful leaders win through integrative thinking. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Such fluidity would probably mean you’d be changing general contractors a few times and increasing your construction costs, but nothing would have to be fixed permanently in place until every element was just right. With integrative thinking, such fluidity characterizes the architecture of ideas as they move from the cognitive realm to the concrete world.
In The Opposable Mind, Roger Martin (2007) again uses Isadore Sharp’s approach to founding the Four Seasons line of hotels to illustrate this element. Normally, hoteliers determined the size of a hotel, defined the services to be offered, and hired the appropriate individuals to provide such services. Mr. Sharp chose a different route. He chose a principle, the “Golden Rule,” to serve as the reference point for designing the hotel’s physical and human resource needs.
By keeping the usual elements (e.g., hotel size) fluid, Sharp could adjust to align the physical and human resource elements with the organizing principle. As a result, he focused on medium-sized, intimate physical structures that offered superior service from carefully chosen and well-trained individuals. To stay true to the “Golden Rule,” Sharp decided against a customer service department, choosing instead to make every employee responsible for all aspects of customer service (p. 37-41).
Salient features of opposing ideas were examined for relationships of causality. These relationships led to a more fluid approach to the architecture as ideas moved to reality. And it all began with the willingness and intentional decision to entertain two seemingly conflicting ideas.
Next time, the final element of integrative thinking: resolution.
Martin, R. (2007). The opposable mind: How successful leaders win through integrative thinking. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Monday, February 16, 2009
Integrative Thinking, Part 3
Integrative thinking considers opposing ideas and borrows from each to construct an idea superior to the original opposing ideas. Salience is one of the thinker’s considerations in processing the opposing ideas. Salience, or relevance, produces a list of desirable traits/characteristics/features that are desired in a new idea.
In The Opposable Mind, Roger Martin (2007) suggests causality continues guiding integrative thinking. Once salient features from each idea have been identified, the thinker explores relationships between them. The relationships, or connections, between the ideas aid the thinker in understanding the give-and-take of each opposing idea and alternatives between the extremes that may yield a better solution.
Martin (2007) illustrates causality by continuing to explore Isadore Sharp’s founding of the Four Seasons line of hotels. Sharp noted an obvious relationship between hotel size and amenity offerings—larger hotels offered more amenities. But did it have to be this way? Could a smaller hotel offer an increased number of amenities and remain profitable? Another causal connection provided a position between the extremes.
Sharp knew that employees more consistently provided outstanding service to hotel guests if the employees were served well by management. The concept of high quality service became the defining characteristic of the Four Seasons hotels, both at the management to employee and employee to guest levels. And that level of service justified higher lodging rates, rates guests were willing to pay because they felt they received service worthy of the monetary outlay (p. 34-37).
Considering causality provided a superior idea to either of the original opposing ideas. Connecting concepts prompted Sharp to explore how altering input (quality of service at all levels) could generate a superior solution (small hotels with great amenities made profitable, in part, by the provided level of service).
Returning to our challenge, what are the causal connections between the salient features of hands-on teaching vs. lecturing? Do these causal connections prompt ideas of better approaches to teaching—ideas that feature elements of both but structured in such a way that the teaching is improved? Play with these thoughts and see what develops.
In the next posting, we’ll explore the third feature of integrative thinking: architecture.
Sources: Martin, R. (2007). The opposable mind. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
In The Opposable Mind, Roger Martin (2007) suggests causality continues guiding integrative thinking. Once salient features from each idea have been identified, the thinker explores relationships between them. The relationships, or connections, between the ideas aid the thinker in understanding the give-and-take of each opposing idea and alternatives between the extremes that may yield a better solution.
Martin (2007) illustrates causality by continuing to explore Isadore Sharp’s founding of the Four Seasons line of hotels. Sharp noted an obvious relationship between hotel size and amenity offerings—larger hotels offered more amenities. But did it have to be this way? Could a smaller hotel offer an increased number of amenities and remain profitable? Another causal connection provided a position between the extremes.
Sharp knew that employees more consistently provided outstanding service to hotel guests if the employees were served well by management. The concept of high quality service became the defining characteristic of the Four Seasons hotels, both at the management to employee and employee to guest levels. And that level of service justified higher lodging rates, rates guests were willing to pay because they felt they received service worthy of the monetary outlay (p. 34-37).
Considering causality provided a superior idea to either of the original opposing ideas. Connecting concepts prompted Sharp to explore how altering input (quality of service at all levels) could generate a superior solution (small hotels with great amenities made profitable, in part, by the provided level of service).
Returning to our challenge, what are the causal connections between the salient features of hands-on teaching vs. lecturing? Do these causal connections prompt ideas of better approaches to teaching—ideas that feature elements of both but structured in such a way that the teaching is improved? Play with these thoughts and see what develops.
In the next posting, we’ll explore the third feature of integrative thinking: architecture.
Sources: Martin, R. (2007). The opposable mind. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
Integrative Thinking, Part 2: Salience
In The Opposable Mind, Roger Martin (2007) defines integrative thinking:
During this pause, integrative thinking rejects neither opposing idea. Instead, it explores each and constructs something new—something that possesses traits of each idea but generates a result/solution better than either opposing idea.
This exploration begins as the thinker analyzes the opposing ideas to identify “salient” (i.e., relevant, important) elements (p. 29). What about Idea A is noteworthy? potentially beneficial? logical? accurate? The same analysis is made of Idea B, the opposing idea. This analysis produces a list of desirable traits/characteristics/features that are desired in a new idea.
To illustrate this analysis for salience, Martin presents Isadore Sharp’s story. When Sharp entered the hotel business, two models dominated. Hotels were either large and offered a myriad of amenities or small and offered just the necessities. Pulling from both models, Sharp designed a hotel with the amenities frequent travelers needed and an emphasis on personal service. This model became the Four Seasons line of hotels. “Rather than choose one of the existing models and accept the downside it entailed, Sharp used his opposable mind to hold the two models in his head, roll them around, and design a creative resolution of the tension between them” (p. 31).
Challenge yourself to apply this factor of integrative thinking. Choose two opposing ideas (e.g., teaching through hands-on activity vs. teaching through lecture). Can you analyze the ideas, identifying salient elements of each? Write a list and keep it handy. In the next posting, we’ll explore the second feature of integrative thinking: causality.
Sources: Martin, R. (2007). The opposable mind. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
The ability to face constructively the tension of opposing ideas and, instead of choosing one at the expense of the other, generate a creative resolution of the tension in the form of a new idea that contains elements of the opposing ideas but is superior to each.
Notice the time factor. Integrative thinking is a form of creative thinking, and creativity requires a pause between initially getting information and moving to application. I often use the term percolate to describe this pause, as in, “I don’t know yet. I need to let the idea percolate.”
During this pause, integrative thinking rejects neither opposing idea. Instead, it explores each and constructs something new—something that possesses traits of each idea but generates a result/solution better than either opposing idea.
This exploration begins as the thinker analyzes the opposing ideas to identify “salient” (i.e., relevant, important) elements (p. 29). What about Idea A is noteworthy? potentially beneficial? logical? accurate? The same analysis is made of Idea B, the opposing idea. This analysis produces a list of desirable traits/characteristics/features that are desired in a new idea.
To illustrate this analysis for salience, Martin presents Isadore Sharp’s story. When Sharp entered the hotel business, two models dominated. Hotels were either large and offered a myriad of amenities or small and offered just the necessities. Pulling from both models, Sharp designed a hotel with the amenities frequent travelers needed and an emphasis on personal service. This model became the Four Seasons line of hotels. “Rather than choose one of the existing models and accept the downside it entailed, Sharp used his opposable mind to hold the two models in his head, roll them around, and design a creative resolution of the tension between them” (p. 31).
Challenge yourself to apply this factor of integrative thinking. Choose two opposing ideas (e.g., teaching through hands-on activity vs. teaching through lecture). Can you analyze the ideas, identifying salient elements of each? Write a list and keep it handy. In the next posting, we’ll explore the second feature of integrative thinking: causality.
Sources: Martin, R. (2007). The opposable mind. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
