First Level Leadership

Reasoning Styles: This write up is a perfect piece of dialectic, in which there is no escaping from the conclusion

The science and art of reasoning

I quested across the faces of participants  in one of my workshops whether “leadership was an art or a science.” Someone said it was a science and gave reasons for that. Another said it was an art. As I moved around the room to seek unique viewpoints, one answer drew my attention.   A Chinese student, not very fluent in English  but with perfect grace, said, “Why can’t it be both? He further added that, in his opinion, they were contrasting aspects of the same idea. That was the first different answer presented in the class.

For it occurred to me that I should find much more truth

in the reasoning of this individual with reference to his reply. When I asked him how he arrived at the conclusion, he promptly replied, “I don’t know, just like that, all at once…”

1) Arriving at the conclusion all at once

This style is not linear because the conclusion is more or less “arrived at all at once.” If you reach a conclusion all at once, and from many directions, you cannot get there by following a straight path. When you discuss any moot subject, where people take opposite sides, might not work well with this style.

This way of thinking can be a rather dense process,

so when our Chinese friend concluded all at once, I don’t think it happened overnight. It might be arrived at “at the spur of the moment,” but after several months of reflection and discussion, (sometimes you are aware if it and sometimes you are not).

How you and others around you think

and process information will play a huge role. It will help you to understand the people you deal with in your group. Again, I am not dealing with formal logic systems here.

Let me punctuate again that you cannot define a thinking style

that precisely describes all people in a group. Also, every situation and question can be different and may therefore require a particular style.

The point is that once we begin to recognize how we process information,

we might begin to better understand how important thinking styles are when we manage and make decisions with people from various cultures. Leadership cannot just have a specified logic system. There is no universal secret code to leadership.

Let’s move to the second rigorous logic of thoughts

2) Start with the conclusion

My Chinese friend arrived at the conclusion all at once but what if you are one of those who prefer to start with the conclusion first? In that case…

Here is an example:

Suppose I start with the statement, “Leadership can be learnt.”

I might support that conclusion by quoting various examples where an ordinary person with average abilities has mastered the skill. As long as all of my points support my theory that “Leadership can be learnt,” I will feel confident that my conclusion can be taken as correct.

This thinking style can be called “Inductive Thinking”

In fact, induction is the kind of logic that people use to support polar views on tough issues as –“this project plan cannot work, the proposal will never get accepted," etc…

You begin with a conclusion and then find a way to back our points

We spiral our way out from the conclusion. As long as your arguments support your initial theory without contradicting one another, we feel comfortable that we can support our conclusion.

3) Finish with the conclusion – Do you excel in drawing the conclusion unerringly?

What if, you are one of those types who finishes with the conclusion? In other words, you start without making any conclusions. You would instead begin by asking questions, collecting facts, and then seeing where all reasoning, and philosophizing take you. After information you arrive at a solution. This kind of logic is called deductive reasoning.

In deductive thinking,

a conclusion is derived from two premises. It consists of a major premise, a minor premise, and a conclusion, i.e. containing three categorical propositions. Aristotle, Pythagoras, and other Greeks philosophers of the classical period developed deductive reasoning. The basic of logic is the syllogism, consisting of a major and a minor premise.

An example of deductive thinking by Aristotle:

All men are mortals (major premise) - Socrates is a man (minor premise) - Therefore, Socrates is mortal (conclusion).

Another example:

All oranges are fruits (major premise) - All fruits grow on trees (minor premise) - Therefore, all oranges grow on trees(conclusion).

In this approach,

you work your way inwards and won’t know for certain what your conclusions will be until you arrive at them.

Note: Your logic is faultless, but your conclusion can be wrong

If the first premises are wrong, then anyone accepting the premises is compelled to accept the conclusion. As I mentioned earlier, I am not attempting to describe a formal method of logical thinking. My area of interest is with respect to leadership skills. If you understand the various reasoning styles, you may be better equipped to handle group dynamics.

Epilogue:

The three styles we have discussed:

1) All at once

2) Start with a conclusion – Inside out

3) Finish with a conclusion- Outside In

Our styles often conflict

I am sharing this dialectical tautness to increase your awareness of the different styles, which may help you to understand how your group thinks.

Points to ponder regarding the application of these reasoning styles

1) Which of these styles do you exploit most?

2) Next time you are in a meeting or a classroom, observe how your group members think and reason.

3)Is there any repugnance that arises because of differences in your own and your group's reasoning styles?

4) How could you profit by altering your own thinking and reasoning style. Should others change - how and why?

Next Step: Sign Up for the First Level Leadership E-zine and get access to good information without any fluff!