Mike_In_Plano said:
It seems to me that within any organization, there will be a particular group of people which can be depended upon to solve the majority of problems.
In turn, particular individuals within the group can be depended upon to solve a particular class of problems. Though it isn't necessarily predictable which person will yield the solution to any given problem.
I attribute this to distinctions in how each person thinks.
While there may be some utility in distinguishing people into classes or specialties of thinking and practice, I think you should also reflect on how these kind of analytical divisions are themselves the product of a certain strain of analysis that produces the semblance of validity by assuming that clear categorical distinctions are more accurate and useful than overlapping categories.
In reality, most individuals are capable of all forms of theory and practice, even if they typically tend toward some and develop strength in those, while being weaker in others and avoiding those because of relative difficulty and negative competitive relations with others who are already stronger in them. Consider this is terms of the relatively valid categories you have given as examples:
One of the most prevalent distinctions being between the theorists and the empiricists. Theorists live in their minds, on paper, and in the books. All things can be explained with math, mechanization, and sound judgment.
This is the traditional distinction between theory and practice. At the abstract level, these are logically opposed ideas. In practice, however, theory and practice or (abstract philosophy and empirical philosophy) actually overlap in many ways. Ask yourself how it would ever be possible to theorize without some reference to empirical data or experience. It's not, actually. Abstract theories always draw on some level of empirical knowledge.
The other side of the coin is that theorists who promote their theories with reference to empiricism are often just as theoretical or more so than those who think more creatively, only they conform more strictly to more socially-recognized or conventional patterns of language and analysis. This form of theory can actually stifle innovation and useful insight, because these theorists are capitalizing on the recognizability of language and concepts, often to the detriment of analytical rigor. They pull out a well-rehearsed idea or explanation and everyone else nods because they recognize the thought - everyone feels validated in their intelligence because they all got to feel like they know something "expensive sounding" and nothing beyond a sense of productivity is achieved.
Empiricists don't count on things being predictable and want to look, to measure, and to mull over what they've seen.
This is an interesting insight. Empiricism does ideally allow people to contradict theory with actual observation. People who insist on fitting observations into their models are actually wasting data in service of bolstering what they know.
Another important distinction seems to go between results oriented reasoning versus a more transcendental form.
This is a giant problem, imo. All kinds of thinkers and doers tend to do this, though, I've noticed. By transcendental theorizing, I assume you mean theorizing that gets lost in descriptive coherency instead of staying focussed on specific reasons for theorizing and practical goals. Arguing over the best way to look at things for no other reason than it being theoretically best is actually theoretically worst. You have to validate your theoretical choices with specific goals and reasoning.
Results oriented people seem to have more success with linking actions and reasoning back to the goals. However, this solution method tends to leave out the benefits of exploration in an effort to obtain rapid results.
Good observation. Add to this a culture that derides theory, thought, and reflection for little more reason than compensating for a sense of inferiority vis-a-vis people who receive privileges for their analytical abilities. This cultural pattern starts in school when more practically skilled people watch as students regarded as higher-intelligence are rewarded and privileged. Many learn to eschew this type of intelligence in order to block out the pain and humiliation of being degraded in their practical skills, ability to work hard in other ways, emotional intelligence, etc.
People need to realize that all people are capable of all forms of intelligence and specialization and division of labor should be reduced to allow all individuals to be more well-rounded in their activities. Not everyone can or should have to do everything, but the more they are able to do, the better they are able to communicate with anyone else in any situation, and make some kind of contribution derived from their own unique set of experiences and skills. No one should feel excluded from participating in brainstorming because they are intimidated by their own lack of knowledge or relevance, imo.
Transcendental rational seems to have the opposite effect / evil. In a universe of diverse possibilities, the thinker becomes lost. Without the mooring offered by goals, it's easy to loose sight of the task.
Nothing really to argue with here, except that almost everyone engages in general and macro-level claims-making, not just certain people. A lot of it is everyday theorizing that passes as common-sense, when in fact it is transcendental theorizing that has no direct connection with directly observable realities. This is a phenomenon that has amazed me. You would think practical people stick to direct empiricism, but in practice direct empiricism requires more mental discipline than intangable flights of theoretical fancy. Everyone's a scientist as long as there's no critical accountability or rigor demanded, and when someone questions their ideas, they just say "never mind" and wait to talk until they find people who agree with them.
Then, give them time. Start with a full blown session with a nice meal, many presentations, and discussion. Then let the team work unfettered for a "cycle time," then give them a 1 week limit for presentations. Repeat this cycle about three times. Each time, let them work unfettered. Then apply a gentle pressure until presentation.
There's also some benefit to encouraging a culture of open discussion and theorizing on the work floor. Transitioning to another setting can encourage the kind of transcendental theorizing that can obscure practical ideas by substituting them for more abstract ones. It's not a bad idea to move around to different setting sometimes as an impetus to fresh thought, but don't underestimate the value of deconstructing the separation between theory and practice during work activities and see how innovative people can become in strategizing ways to resolve real-world problems and shortcomings of existing processes.
