"By respectfully engaging with one another’s ideas and arguments, participants begin to see alternatives to their own way of thinking’or indeed recognize that apparent differences are only superficial’and arrive at a common way of thinking.If people at the start of a decision-making process have different opinions and points of view, then arriving at a common understanding requires at least some of them to change their minds. Arguing constructively, and in particular focusing on elaborating causal arguments, is more likely to cause such changes than a simple exchange of viewpoints. In fact, simply providing reasons for one’s viewpoint is likely to harden people’s points of view and lead to a stalemate....When managers arrive, through disinterested dialogue, at a common understanding of the situation and an agreed-upon argument to justify their decision, they are more likely to act coherently...If strategic management does not change the way organizational members think, and so act, strategy can only have any real impact through coercion. Without changing ways of thinking, organizational members continue to see the same problems as they always did, and they continue to solve these problems using the same beliefs as before"
Trechos retirados de “Arguing for Organizational Advantage” de Sorensen, Jesper B.; Carroll, Glenn R.
Sem comentários:
Enviar um comentário