The problem-solving processes and strategies of ten forum admins with reputations for high effectiveness were studied. Verbal protocols were gathered through unstructured interviews while admins were working on a set of five cases. Analysis of the data was guided, but not constrained, by a set of processes and strategies for problem solving suggested by the models of problem solving developed. Results describe the categories of problem solving processes that emerged across the five problems, the frequencies with which these processes were used, graphic representations of the strategies admins used to solve the problems, as well as the consistency of using the same strategy across problems.
Although leadership has long been fertile ground for research and debate, there are many contradictions in the accumulated knowledge base, and certain areas still remain unexplored. One neglected area relates to how administrators solve problems. Up until then, problem solving had been addressed primarily in the context of decision-making, and investigations failed to provide understandings of how administrators interpret and think through the problems that give rise to decisions. Recently, it has been suggested that a focus on cognitive processes may contribute to a more complete theoretical frame for studying how administrators solve problems.In this regard, how administrators perceive, interpret, understand, and solve problems is the heart of understanding and improving educational administration:
Efforts to understand the roots of effective administration … will be much more productive if they shift from a focus on action or behaviour to a focus on thinking or problem solving.
The writting I put here is grounded in the cognitive approach to investigating leadership and focuses on the school principalship. Specifically, I examined the cognitive processes and strategies highly effective forum admins engage in when solving organizational problems.
A Cognitive Approach to Understanding Problem Solving
Over the last decade or so, an increasing number of researchers have argued that the focus of future research on organizational leadership ought to be more on the cognitive dimensions of leadership and less on leadership styles. The results support the contention that understandings of leaders’ cognitions are important. More specifically, researchers conducted a series of investigations to probe the ways in which leaders go about solving organizational problems and concluded that “successful leaders are capable of identifying and solving significant organizational problems using an analysis of organizational requirements and constraints, along with wisdom and perspective taking, to craft viable solutions likely to work within the organizational context”
In the domain of organization leadership, one concluded that cognitive perspectives make three central contributions to the study of administration:
(a) they redefine the meaning of effective leadership by focusing attention on expert, internal, cognitive processes
(b) they expand understandings of the knowledge base required to exercise effective leadership
c) they enrich understandings of how leadership expertise develops.
Cognitive perspectives have been applied only recently in the field of forum administration and leadership, highlighting two phenomena that are consistent with contemporary thinking about leadership. The first is that people can handle only a certain amount of information at any given time, and thus are selective about the things they pay attention to and process. The second is that people impose their own meanings on environmental events. This notion is related to the concept of constructivism, which proposes that people construct their own knowledge from their experiences.
Problem Solving Theory and the Notion of Expertise
In cognitive studies of problem solving in organizations, attention has been directed toward the manner in which information is noticed, interpreted, and processed by administrators. One aspect of studies in this area is a focus on the concept of expertise and its development among administrators. These studies have identified a number of differences in how experts and novices solve problems. Specifically, it has been found that experts pay more attention to monitoring and managing their problem-solving activities; they draw more on their domain knowledge to build more effective representations of problems than do non-experts; they create more complete, abstract, coherent, and functional problem representations; they identify and possess more complex goals for problem solving; they spend more time planning their strategies and are able to use a greater variety of approaches to the task of developing a solution; and they are more sensitive to the social contexts within which problems are to be solved.
In 1983, two structures in problem solving were identified: a control structure and a reasoning structure, each with its own set of operators.
The control structure relates to goal attainment, and controls the problem-solving process. It consists of seven operators that act upon the individual’s knowledge base and generate the problem solutions. These operators are state constraint, state subproblem, state solution, interpret problem statement, provide support, evaluate, and summarize. The reasoning structure is complementary to the control structure, and includes the justifications that subjects use during problem solving. The ten operators of the reasoning structure are state argument, state assertion, state facts, present specific case or example, state reasons, state outcome, compare and/or contrast previous statement, elaborate and/or clarify, state conclusion, and state qualification.
Researchers went beyond simply identifying the elements of the problem-solving processes used by experts; they also described how these processes are organized into strategies that help solvers address the problem. A problem-solving strategy is a patterned set of cognitive processes. They found three strategies or archetypal combinations of processes:
• Decomposition, in which the main problem is broken down into a set of subproblems, usually no more than three.
• Conversion, in which the given problem is converted into another issue for which a solution may already exist.
• Identifying and eliminating the factors that contribute to the problem.
Other researchers have focused on the skills, knowledge, and social judgements that seem to be related to leaders’ effectiveness in solving organizational problems. Their data indicated that problem-solving skills and knowledge are the most potent in predicting effective leadership. Seven skills grouped under two general categories are:
• Problem construction
• Information encoding
• Category specification
• Category combination and reorganization
• Idea evaluation
• Solution implementation
• Solution monitoring
Other investigation to describe educational leaders’ problem-solving processes suggests typology of problem solving processes comprises six components that are grouped under three general categories :
• Understanding – interpreting the problem, setting goals
• Solving – identifying constraints, generating solutions
• Dispositions – considering values, considering mood
25 thg 10, 2009
US President Obama, in his recent inaugural address to the Congress, suggested highly likely convergence towards globalnomics. That is, economics increasingly managed from a global perspective. Most interestingly, he cited China as the model for realigning US energy usage towards clean power. This piece of news must be welcomed the world over. It is a change in US policy making that is long, long overdue.
Yes, he clearly espouses the very traditional American “never say die” spirit. In recent management history, the Americans fought back highly successfully against the onslaught of Japanese corporations. It was an era that spawned the hugely popular management classic by Peters and Waterman, In Search of Excellence. I must say, however, that many of these excellent corporations lost their luster. It just goes to show how difficult it is to stay ahead of competition.
Then it was just Japan and South Korea as overseas competitors to the USA. Now, as the USA is rebuilding, there is on the horizon a foe that is far more formidable. Metaphorically, can the USA, burdened by more than a trillion dollars (as of 25 February, 2009) of deficit, do battle with China? Clearly, the “battle of China” is enthralling to watch. Just as the emergence of Japan as an economic powerhouse led to Americans learning the Toyota way, will the USA and the world be embracing some aspects of Chinese management?
Perhaps this very phase – the “battle of ideas” – has already been anticipated by the Chinese, for China has been active in sponsoring the establishment of Confucius Institutes globally. Born 2,500 years ago, Confucius was like Sun Tzu from the turbulent Spring and Autumn period. Why Confucius? If you know not why, then it is time to read his works and ponder.
Like Obama in his inaugural Congressional address, Confucius too emphasized education. Of most importance for the Confucian scholar is the necessity for continual self-learning. The difference in management studies between the USA and China lies in one fact. In China, there is a core of ancient texts that remain timeless, providing continuing relevance to the Chinese people. In the USA, management education is fast becoming much more like fashion. See how business schools compete with a parade of ever flashier brochures.
Where did Confucius get his ideas, you may ask. Few people realize Confucius considered himself simply a “transmitter”, and that in the Analects, Confucius made it clear, “I invent nothing new”. So this core of ancient yet ever-relevant Chinese thinking had already been in existence 2,500 years ago. One key source of deep Chinese wisdom is the I Ching.
If you study Lao Tzu’s (Lao-zi) Tao De Jing or Sun Tzu’s (Sun-zi) Art of War and ponder deeply on the root sources of their ideas, you find it goes right back to the guas or hexagrams in I Ching. In other words, Confucius often pondered on these symbolic imageries in his own self-learning. With China as the future global economic powerhouse, it will be very intriguing research to explore how some of the popular “MBA” ideas may be traced back in time. Perhaps to antiquated sources where authors first crafted their works on bamboo, wood, bone, tortoise shells or bronze instead of iPods.
Looking to the near future, corporate executives, besides citing Toyota, may perhaps also be learning the Chinese way of managing from Hua-wei Technologies Corporation. Literally Hua-Wei is pinyin of or the Chinese way. If so, this makes research a necessity in order to obtain a deep understanding of the current reality of Chinese management. A very interesting concept looking at strategic decision making within small and medium-sized enterprises (SME) has been introduced in research articles. I had anticipated some of the findings by Charles Huang but it is good that we have this validated through research. Theoretical models on decision making are typically far more complex than reality. The papers also discuss what should immediately interest Chinese policymakers. Why? With the USA in deep economic trouble, President Hu Jintao has advocated a self-independent, innovative strategy (; pinyin zi zhu chuang xin).
Yet as the Datang hosiery cluster paper (Michele Akoorie and Qiang Ding) documents, Chinese value adding lies mainly in intensive, cheap labor. China needs a sustained strategy for breakthroughs in design that captivate both their home as well as global markets. How? By staying a step ahead of the Italians through evolving Euro-Sino designs. Papers documenting other industry clusters will be considered favorably, especially if they add new perspectives and insights. On how Chinese policy makers may help China transform to become self-independently innovative in product creations can be found in many discussion in Chinese forums.
Other paper highlights the critical role in managing organizational behavior within Chinese enterprises. It is highly rigorous doctoral work, factor analyzing the responses from 1,303 respondents from 29 Chinese companies in 2005-2006. The fourth paper should read , by Ding Zhikun and N.G. Fungfai, is an empirical test, in China, of a well-known theory of reasoned action. In their paper, Gebaur and Fischer highlight, through their research, the service needs within the manufacturing sector. Again as the data are from the pre-crisis era, emphasis is consistent with China being a global manufacturing base: in a word, cost-driven. Such doctoral works are certainly welcomed but it is necessary that these should not be overly technical, or be merely extended discussions of refining a research instrument for Chinese respondents.
Yes, he clearly espouses the very traditional American “never say die” spirit. In recent management history, the Americans fought back highly successfully against the onslaught of Japanese corporations. It was an era that spawned the hugely popular management classic by Peters and Waterman, In Search of Excellence. I must say, however, that many of these excellent corporations lost their luster. It just goes to show how difficult it is to stay ahead of competition.
Then it was just Japan and South Korea as overseas competitors to the USA. Now, as the USA is rebuilding, there is on the horizon a foe that is far more formidable. Metaphorically, can the USA, burdened by more than a trillion dollars (as of 25 February, 2009) of deficit, do battle with China? Clearly, the “battle of China” is enthralling to watch. Just as the emergence of Japan as an economic powerhouse led to Americans learning the Toyota way, will the USA and the world be embracing some aspects of Chinese management?
Perhaps this very phase – the “battle of ideas” – has already been anticipated by the Chinese, for China has been active in sponsoring the establishment of Confucius Institutes globally. Born 2,500 years ago, Confucius was like Sun Tzu from the turbulent Spring and Autumn period. Why Confucius? If you know not why, then it is time to read his works and ponder.
Like Obama in his inaugural Congressional address, Confucius too emphasized education. Of most importance for the Confucian scholar is the necessity for continual self-learning. The difference in management studies between the USA and China lies in one fact. In China, there is a core of ancient texts that remain timeless, providing continuing relevance to the Chinese people. In the USA, management education is fast becoming much more like fashion. See how business schools compete with a parade of ever flashier brochures.
Where did Confucius get his ideas, you may ask. Few people realize Confucius considered himself simply a “transmitter”, and that in the Analects, Confucius made it clear, “I invent nothing new”. So this core of ancient yet ever-relevant Chinese thinking had already been in existence 2,500 years ago. One key source of deep Chinese wisdom is the I Ching.
If you study Lao Tzu’s (Lao-zi) Tao De Jing or Sun Tzu’s (Sun-zi) Art of War and ponder deeply on the root sources of their ideas, you find it goes right back to the guas or hexagrams in I Ching. In other words, Confucius often pondered on these symbolic imageries in his own self-learning. With China as the future global economic powerhouse, it will be very intriguing research to explore how some of the popular “MBA” ideas may be traced back in time. Perhaps to antiquated sources where authors first crafted their works on bamboo, wood, bone, tortoise shells or bronze instead of iPods.
Looking to the near future, corporate executives, besides citing Toyota, may perhaps also be learning the Chinese way of managing from Hua-wei Technologies Corporation. Literally Hua-Wei is pinyin of or the Chinese way. If so, this makes research a necessity in order to obtain a deep understanding of the current reality of Chinese management. A very interesting concept looking at strategic decision making within small and medium-sized enterprises (SME) has been introduced in research articles. I had anticipated some of the findings by Charles Huang but it is good that we have this validated through research. Theoretical models on decision making are typically far more complex than reality. The papers also discuss what should immediately interest Chinese policymakers. Why? With the USA in deep economic trouble, President Hu Jintao has advocated a self-independent, innovative strategy (; pinyin zi zhu chuang xin).
Yet as the Datang hosiery cluster paper (Michele Akoorie and Qiang Ding) documents, Chinese value adding lies mainly in intensive, cheap labor. China needs a sustained strategy for breakthroughs in design that captivate both their home as well as global markets. How? By staying a step ahead of the Italians through evolving Euro-Sino designs. Papers documenting other industry clusters will be considered favorably, especially if they add new perspectives and insights. On how Chinese policy makers may help China transform to become self-independently innovative in product creations can be found in many discussion in Chinese forums.
Other paper highlights the critical role in managing organizational behavior within Chinese enterprises. It is highly rigorous doctoral work, factor analyzing the responses from 1,303 respondents from 29 Chinese companies in 2005-2006. The fourth paper should read , by Ding Zhikun and N.G. Fungfai, is an empirical test, in China, of a well-known theory of reasoned action. In their paper, Gebaur and Fischer highlight, through their research, the service needs within the manufacturing sector. Again as the data are from the pre-crisis era, emphasis is consistent with China being a global manufacturing base: in a word, cost-driven. Such doctoral works are certainly welcomed but it is necessary that these should not be overly technical, or be merely extended discussions of refining a research instrument for Chinese respondents.
Đăng ký:
Bài đăng (Atom)
Bài đăng
