Styles of Thinking

The Synthesist:

1. Grand strategy: The Dialectic.
1. Thesis- that which already exists, or which is known, accepted, generally believed.
2. Antithesis- what is new in the world, just emerging and becoming known, not yet accepted, and which challenges popular belief.
3. Synthesis- the new, original, "creative" results of the integration of the thesis and antithesis.
2. Synthesis strategies:
1. Open argument and confrontation.
2. Asking dumb-smart questions.
3. Participating from the sidelines.
4. Suspending opposing ideas.
5. Speculation and fantasy.
6. Proposing "far-out" solutions.
7. Negative analysis.

The Analyst:

1. Grand strategy: search for the one best way.
1. Gather data, in order to:
2. Define the problem thoroughly and accurately, followed by:
3. Search for alternative Solutions, which are to be evaluated against
4. A set of specific decision or selection criteria, leading to
5. Selection of the best alternative, after which decision we
6. Implement the solution; which does not end the process, because finally we must
7. Evaluate the outcome of the solution to make sure it was really the one best alternative.
2. Analyst strategies:
1. Systematic analysis of alternatives.
2. The search for more data.
3. Conservative focusing.
4. Charting the situation.
5. Constructive nitpicking.
6. Deductive reasoning.

The Idealist:

1. Grand strategy: Assimilative Thinking.
1. The world can be a better place, and people can live together in it harmoniously, if only they can agree on overall goals.
2. Everything is connected with everything else.
2. Idealist strategies:
1. Focusing on the whole.
2. The long-range view.
3. Setting goals and standards.
4. Receptiive listening.
5. Search for aids to agreement.
6. Humanizing the argument.

The Pragmatist:

1. Grand strategy: The Contingency Approach.
1. "Whatever works"
2. "It all depends on the situation."
2. Pragmatist strategies:
1. Moving one step at a time.
2. Experiment and innovation.
3. Looking for a quick payoff.
4. Tactical thinking.
5. The marketing approach.
6. Contingency planning.

The Realist:

1. Grand strategy: Emperical Discovery.
2. Realist strategies:
1. Setting hard objections.
2. The resource inventory.
1. Your environment (where you are).
2. Your operations (what you do).
3. Your goals (where you want to go).
4. Your resources.
3. Getting to specifics.
4. Simplification (reducing a problem to its simplest form).
5. Using expert opinion.
6. Incisive correction.

How the styles work together:

1. The idealistic-analyst.
1. Wants to achieve the ideal goal using the best method available.
2. Careful, thoughtful people.
3. Broad, future-oriented, planned view of things.
4. Idealistic-analysts are unlikely to make quick decisions or snap judgments.
2. The analyst-realist.
1. People who are highly task-oriented in objective, who consider themselves factual, in like structured approaches to problems.
2. Is one that seeks order, predictability, and control over the situation.
3. Plan things carefully and meticulously, and remain firmly focused on the task to be done.
3. The synthesist-idealist.
   1. Focuses on ideals, values, and inferences rather than on plans, structure, and facts.
   2. The synthesist-idealist is speculative, process-oriented, and interested in the "whys" of things.
   3. The synthesist-idealist is likely to be seen as someone who is in touch with the broad meaning of things.
4. The idealist-realist.
   1. This combination is characterized by a twin thrust of high standards and "concreteness."
   2. The idealist-realist knows how things "should" be, and has at hand practical steps for reaching the "should."
   3. A person with the idealist-realist combination may often be seen by others as both receptive and immediately helpful.
   4. The idealist-realist is likely to show considerable drive towards getting things done and achieving high quality results at the same time.
5. The pragmatist-realist.
   1. Is highly task-oriented, that approaches problems in a less structured and deliberate way.
   2. The pragmatist-realist is interested in achieving concrete results, but will do so in an experimental, incremental manner.
   3. The pragmatist-realist is apt to be someone with considerable energy and drive, who may show a strong need to agree for the sake of achievement.
   4. They are prone to make quick decisions, with a minimum of data, and to be more interested in movement and action than in careful planning.
6. The idealist-pragmatist.
   1. Will approach problems in the situational, "pragmatic" way, and so long as goals are kept in mind and high standards are maintained.
   2. Idealist-pragmatist are apt to have a high concern for people issues, and to be tuned in to people's needs.
7. The analyst-pragmatist.
   1. Is the person who values structure and predictability, knows where he or she is going in general how to get there, but is willing to experiment along the way.
   2. A kind of structure playfulness is likely to characterize the thought processes of the analyst-pragmatist: "Let's see, here's where I want to go. Here's how to get there. Now what might be fun and profitable to do along the way?"
8. The analyst-synthesist.
   1. This combination is characterized by and respect for structure and logic, together with an understanding and valuing of the opposite.
   2. Can be a planner who also takes the trouble to develop a counterplan.
9. The synthesist-pragmatist.
1. Shows highest tolerance for ambiguity and uncertainty of any orientation.
2. Should be able to live comfortably in a changing, and certain world better than the rest of us.
3. Is apt to be an individual who is short on patience with prolonged analysis, excessive sentimentality or formalistic methods.
10. The synthesist-realist.
1. Is a person will find preferences in both dimensions would experience a good deal of internal conflict, because both are opposite ends of the thinking spectrum.
2. When did two styles of working in a complimentary way, the synthesist-realist may be a person with great energy and for unorthodox but firm achievement.

Influencing others:

1. Some general rules.
1. Look at the specific situation.
2. Look at your respective roles in the situation--yours and that of the person you want to influence.
3. Try out one approach, the one that seems best to fit the other person's style and the situation.
4. Modify your approach as needed.
5. Think about what happened, as soon after the interaction as possible, and ask yourself what else you might have done.
2. Influencing idealists.
1. "Can you help me with my problem?"
• Idealists like being helpful. They like being seen that way, and they feel rewarded by a chance to assist in the solving of someone else's problem.
2. "Keep in touch"
• Idealists need to be helped, supported, and gently encouraged toward a decision.
3. Help them not to be nice.
• With many idealists, the hardest thing to get them to do is say something negative. Your task is to help the idealist voice his or her cocerns.
4. Avoid conflict like the plague!
1. Synthesists must learn to be nice. Equally important they must remember that idealists take things more seriously than synthesists.
2. Realists need to remember that their straightforward, concise, self-assured approach is often nothing but a red flag for the idealists.
3. Influencing analysts.
1. Learn to love the great stone face.
1. The problem is that analysts aren't much forgiving feedback. They don't smile and nod and make warm sounds of encouragement. They just sit there.
2. Keep your composure, and go ahead with your presentation, pitch, report, or whatever it is. Go through it from A to Z, and be sure it is structured, logical, well formulated, and thorough. Forget the show biz, the idealism, the dramatic effect. Just do it.
3. Make your own feedback. At critical points in your presentation, where it is important to know whether or not you're on track, pause, change your tone of voice lately, and say "Does that make sense?" Or "Does that seem reasonable to you?"
2. Do your homework.
1. Never make a report or presentation to an analyst in a slipshod, quick and dirty manner. Remember, for them thoroughness and accuracy equate with competence.
2. Don't get defensive or flustered. Analysts don't care that much how you feel about anything.
3. If you are wrong or something is missing, own up to it without lengthy explanation.
4. Let them have their fun.
3. Be logical, be orderly.
4. Let them data you to death.
• Not only do analysts require a lot of data from you, in order to be influenced they also need to give a great deal of it back.
5. Look for the theory.
• Almost everything an analyst says is connected to a broad theoretical base, but you'll seldom get them to admit it. Analysts think of themselves as down-to-earth, concrete and practical. On the surface, of course they are. The underneath are broad theoretical models that provides stanchiness to a belief in their own plans of action.
4. Influencing realists.
1. Get to the point, quickly.
2. Be concise.
3. "Firm but fair."
4. Encourage appropriation.
5. Give control.
5. Influencing pragmatists.
1. Don't be heavy.
2. Bargain, always bargain.
3. Let 'em be likeable.
4. Pick up on the "messages."
• When pragmatists have something less than complimentary on their mind, they will disguise it in a cloak of good humor or friendly, joking "messages."
5. Take a marketing stance.
6. The win-win compromise.
• Delightful thing about pragmatists is that they never expect to get everything they want. The frustrating about them is that they know you aren't going to get everything you want, either. For them, finding their productive middle ground between the two is a fascinating game.
6. Influencing sythesists.
1. The cajoling specific.
• "Can you give me an example of that?'
• "What would that look like?"
2. "Don't bother me with facts."
1. Out of all that speculation, etcetera, make come some really useful ideas, if you can only listen for them.
2. It is up to you to take the responsibility for finding the practical applications in that welter of confusion.
3. Fighting can be fun.
• Sparing, teasing, matching wits, the friendly fight: this is one of the best ways to influence a synthesist for the short-term.
4. "Which way did it go?"
• Synthesists are especially prone to blurting out fresh ideas and insights in ways that seem to have no relevance to the matter at hand.
5. Seriously, play around a lot (brainstorming).
1. Every idea is acceptable (even if it sounds silly).
2. New evaluation of ideas is permitted during the brainstorming, either verbal or non-verbal approval or disapproval.
3. The quatity of ideas is the main goal--quality ideas will normally follow. This is called freewheeling.
4. Building on the contributions of others is referred to as hitchhiking and is encouraged.
5. Group member should be encouraged to think of "opposites" to ideas that have already been suggested.

The productive use of your strenghts:
   A. The importance of situational self-knowledge.
     Style of thinking                             General situation

Synthesis	The mind-blowing mess
Idealist	The care and nurturing of quality
Pragmatist	"Where do we go from here?"
Analyst	Negotiating the straight and narrow
Realist	Getting the show on the road

   B. Recommendations for how to go about making the most productive use of your strenghts:

1. Understand your preferred style or styles of thinking how they work and the strategies that are typical of them.
2. Understand that your styles of thinking are good for. Learn to acknowledge and respect your strenghts, rather than wishing you were different.
3. Pick your best situations; that is, learn what they are likely to be and how to recognize them.
4. Use your strenghts purposefully, when the situation calls for them.

Extending and augmenting your thinking strategies:

1. Improving your synthesist skills.
1. Practice listening for conflict and disagreement.
2. Ask dumb-smart questions.
3. Develop the third-party observer viewpoint.
4. Look for relationships between things that have no apparent likeness.
5. Practice improving your tolerance for eccentricity.
6. Practice negative analysis. "What if such-and-such doesn't happen." A negative "What if."
2. Improving your idealist skills.
1. Focus on the whole, not the "one best way."
2. Focus on the long range.
3. Think about high standards and superordinate goals.
4. Listen for value statements and aspirations.
5. Try to fit a number of differing ideas under a common framework.
6. Encourage others to express their aspirations.
3. Improving your pragmatist skills.
1. Practice thinking incrementally.
2. Allow others to experiment, and try to join in.
3. Look for the short-range pay off.
4. Learn to think tactically.
1. Who is on my side? What forces are in my favor? What forces and people are potential support? How do I get them on my side?
2. Who may be against me? What forces are operating in opposition to me? Why?
3. What can I do to minimize those opposing forces? What are my options? How are those opposing forces likely to react to each of my opinions?
5. Practice being "marketable."
6. Try being less tediously serious and more playful, especially with ideas and plans.
4. Improving your analysist skills.
1. Study statistics or operations research.
2. Learn to gather more data before a decision.
3. Learn to make a flowchart.
4. Learn to tolerate quantifications.
5. Pay greater attention to detail.
6. Focus on constraints.
1. What is the deadline for completing the project?
2. What exactly are the available resources (people, equipment, money)?
3. Are the resources really sufficient for getting the project done on time?
4. What are the probable barriers standing in the way of doing the job properly?
5. Improving your realist skills.
1. Focus on concrete results.
2. Focus on resources.
3. Practice getting to the point quickly.
4. Learn to paraphrase for precision.
5. Practice writing short, declarative sentences.
6. Practice incisiveness.

                                      Synthesist                                Idealist                                          Pragmatist                                    Analyst                               Realist

Characterized by:	Integrative view Sees likeness in apparent unlikes Seeks conflict and synthesis Interested in change Speculative Data meaningless without interpretation	Assimilative or holistic view Broad range of views welcomed Seeks ideal solutions Interested in values Receptive Data and theory of equal value	Eclectic view "Whatever works" Shortest route to pay off Interested in innovation Adaptive Any data or theory that gets us there	Formal logic and deduction Seeks "one best way" Sees models and formulas Interested in "scentific" solutions Prescriptive Theory and method over data	Emperical view and induction Relies on "facts" and expert opinion Seeks solutions that meet current needs Interested in concrete results Corrective Data over theory
Strengths:	Focuses on underlying assumptions Points out abstract conceptual aspects Good at preventing over- agreement Best in controversial, conflict- laden situations Provides debate and creativity	Focus on process, relationships Points out values and aspirations Good at articulating goals Best in unstructured, value-laden situations Provides broad view, goals and standards	Focuses on payoff Points out tactics and strategies Good at identifying impacts Best in complex, incremental situations Provides experiment and innovation	Focuses on method and plan Points out data and details Good at model-building and planning Best in structured, calculatable situations Provides stability and structure	Focuses on facts and results Points out realities and resources Good at simplifying, "cutting through" Best in well-defined, objective situations Provides drive and momentum
Liabilities:	May screen out agreement May seek out conflict unnecessarily May try too hard for change and newness May theorize excessively Can appear uncommitted	May screen out "hard" data May delay from too many choices May trying too "hard" for perfect solutions May overlook details Can appear overly sentimental	May screen out long-range aspects May rush too quickly to payoff May try too hard for expediency May rely too much on what "sells" Can appear over-compromisng	May screen out values and subjectives May over-plan, over-analyze May try too hard for predictability May be inflexible, overly cautious Can appear tunnel-visioned	May screen out disagreement May rush to oversimplified solutions May try too hard for consensus and immediate response May over-emphasize perceived "facts" Can appear too results-oriented
Apt to appear:	Challenging, skeptical, amused; or may appear tuned out, but alert when disagrees.	Attentive, receptive, often supportive smile, head nodding, much verbal feedback.	Open, sociable; often in good deal of humor, interplay, quick to agree.	Cool, studios, often hard to read; may be a lack of feedback, as if hearing you out.	Direct, forceful, agreement and disagreement often quickly expressed nonverbally.
Apt to say:	"On the other hand..." "No, that's not necessarily so..."	"It seems to me..." "Don't you think that...?"	"I'll buy that..." "That's sure one way to go..."	"It stands to reason..." "If you look at it logically..."	"It's obvious to me..." "Everybody knows that..."
Apt to express:	Concepts, opposite points of view; speculates, may identify absurdities.	Feelings, ideas about values, what's good for people, concerns about goals.	Non-complex ideas; may tell brief personal antidotes to explain ideas.	General rules; describes things  systematically, offers substantiating data.	Opinion; describes factually, may offer short, pointed anecdotes.
Tone:	Sardonic, probing, skeptical; may sound argumentative.	Inquiring, hopeful; may sound tentative or disappointed and resentful.	Enthusiastic, agreeable; may sound insincere.	Dry, disciplined, careful; may sound set, stubborn.	Forthright, positive; may sound dogmatic or domineering.
Enjoys:	Speculative, philosophical, intellectual argument.	Feeling-level discussions about people and their problems.	Brainstorming around tactical issues; lively give-and-take.	Structured, rational examination of substantive issues.	Short, direct, factual discussions of immediate matters.
Apt to use:	Parenthetical expressions, qualifying adjectives and phrases.	Indirect questions, aids to gain agreement.	Case examples, illustrations, popular opinions.	Long, discursive, well-formulated sentences.	Direct, pithy, descriptive statements.
Dislikes:	Talk that seems simplistic, superficially polite, fact-centered repetitive, "mundane."	Talk that seems too data-bound, factual, "dehumanizing"; and openly conflictual argument unless about issues of caring or integrity.	Talk that seems dry, dull, humorless; or too conceptual, philosophical, analytical, "nitpicking."	Talk that seem irrational, aimless, or too speculative, "far-out"; and irrelevant humor.	Talk that seems too theoretical, sentimental, subjective, impractical, "long-winded."
Under stress:	Pokes fun.	Looks hurt.	Looks bored.	Withdrawn.	Gets agitated.

Source: Styles of Thinking: Strategies for Asking Questions, Making Decisions, and Solving Problems (1982) by Allen F. Harrison.