Integrative Thinking
![Picture](/uploads/1/5/4/9/15496358/965189.jpg?439)
Integrative thinking is an interesting idea that neither of us had ever heard before; however, after reading the article entitled ‘How Successful Leaders Think’ by Roger Martin, we came to the decision that it was an essential component of becoming an effective leader. Martin defines integrative thinking as a, “…process of consideration and synthesis” (Martin 62). Throughout the article, Martin compares integrative thinkers with conventional thinkers. We will use this comparison to make it easier to understand this new concept.
There are four stages of integrative thinking, the first being determining salience. This step consists of analyzing the problem and all related assumptions. The conventional thinker takes into account all factors of the problem and disregards the ones that are not relevant. In opposition, the integrative thinker accounts for each and every factor no matter the probability of it happening. Martin elaborates by saying, “…salient features make for a messier problem, but integrative thinkers don’t mind the mess” (Martin 64).
The next stage is called analyzing causality, which defines the process of finding relationships among different variables. Conventional thinkers attempt to make a problem simplistic and linear in their relationship; for example, A will always result in B. On the other hand, integrative thinkers approach these relationships in a nonlinear, multidirectional manner and don’t assume that there is only one simple explanation.
The third stage is envisioning the decision architecture, and this is the hallmark of integrative thinking. In this step, it is extremely apparent how conventional and integrative thinkers differ. Conventional thinkers, according to Martin, “break problems into pieces and work on them separately or sequentially” (Martin 65). Integrative thinkers, “see problems as a whole, examining how the parts fit together and how decisions affect one another” (Martin 65). This determines the difference between greatness and mediocrity in a leader.
The final step is achieving resolution, and it deals with deciding on solutions. Conventional thinkers will always take the easy way out by picking the best option in front of them. Integrative thinkers will use creativity and originality to decide upon a solution, which may even be creation of their own idea that encompasses all solutions into one.
Martin summarizes the entire integrative thinking process by stating that, “integrative thinkers don’t mind a messy problem…they welcome complexity, because that’s where the best answers come from” (Martin 66).
There are four stages of integrative thinking, the first being determining salience. This step consists of analyzing the problem and all related assumptions. The conventional thinker takes into account all factors of the problem and disregards the ones that are not relevant. In opposition, the integrative thinker accounts for each and every factor no matter the probability of it happening. Martin elaborates by saying, “…salient features make for a messier problem, but integrative thinkers don’t mind the mess” (Martin 64).
The next stage is called analyzing causality, which defines the process of finding relationships among different variables. Conventional thinkers attempt to make a problem simplistic and linear in their relationship; for example, A will always result in B. On the other hand, integrative thinkers approach these relationships in a nonlinear, multidirectional manner and don’t assume that there is only one simple explanation.
The third stage is envisioning the decision architecture, and this is the hallmark of integrative thinking. In this step, it is extremely apparent how conventional and integrative thinkers differ. Conventional thinkers, according to Martin, “break problems into pieces and work on them separately or sequentially” (Martin 65). Integrative thinkers, “see problems as a whole, examining how the parts fit together and how decisions affect one another” (Martin 65). This determines the difference between greatness and mediocrity in a leader.
The final step is achieving resolution, and it deals with deciding on solutions. Conventional thinkers will always take the easy way out by picking the best option in front of them. Integrative thinkers will use creativity and originality to decide upon a solution, which may even be creation of their own idea that encompasses all solutions into one.
Martin summarizes the entire integrative thinking process by stating that, “integrative thinkers don’t mind a messy problem…they welcome complexity, because that’s where the best answers come from” (Martin 66).