Wiki contents

Journals

2019 Learning journals
2018 Learning journals
2015 Learning journals
2014 Learning journals
2013 Learning journals

Smartsims Support Centre

Blog updates

Recently Updated

Recent updates

Recently Updated

All updates

Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata

"How about we....", "No", ".... but what if we?", "No".

When your walking into an argument with a predisposition, sometimes you don’t even end up listening to the opposition. This is an issue I will tackle within this learning journal and will be structured accordingly to Daudelin's model of reflection but will mostly reference Brooks and John's (2018) study behind the power of asking questions.


Daudelin’s (1996) initial stage begins with the articulation of the problem.

While my team was busy discussing the importance behind making a .... certain decision, I was initially heavily against it and was not willing to listen to reason. 

Daudelin's (1996) second stage of reflection then continues with an analysis of the problem.

You only want to hear what you want to hear. A form of confirmation bias I can admittedly say plagues me as I rudely continue finding myself talking over them within my head saying, "nah" , "hurry up and finish so I can say your wrong and counter it". I noticed I barely comprehended what they say, and even if I do pay attention within some parts I dismiss them as repetitive arguments they keep throwing out over and over.

Daudelin's (1996) third stage is the formulation and testing of a tentative theory to explain the problem.

The theory proposed by Brooks and John (2018) explains how people can be apathetic in the sense that some don't care enough to ask further questions and they may anticipate being bored by answers they'd hear. This scarily aligns to how I was when I was at today's meeting initially as the study also exposes me of my behavior of overconfidence and stubbornness within my own assured knowledge and answers. However, what brought me out of this state of being was when questions were asked about the reasoning for each person, which made us open up more behind our judgments. This overall, made me reassess my beliefs when open ended questions were proposed that allowed me and others to communicate their beliefs outside of an 'interrogative questioning' that typically resulted in stubborn 'yes' or 'no' leading to nowhere.

The final stage of reflection from Daudelin (1996) is the decisions around action (or lack of).

I acknowledge that it can feel like a personal attack, or it is easy to get offended when others tell you outright no. Therefore, the study by Brooks and John (2018) has revealed to me to ask more open ended questions, which aren't interrogative in nature, opening up more opportunities for a conversation, a back and forth to occur. This sharing of information is what eventually led to me becoming more enlighted of the other side of my initially heavily one sided opinion. In fact I ended up agreeing over the decision,  even though I had initially stubbornly never even saw myself agreeing in any small minor aspects in. This has also revealed to me that, although having bunch of yes men may fuel my ego, it is better to have conflict and debates where each side actually listen to one another. This means that my future mindset needs to acknowledge that as a team we are each trying to reach a common cause of doing the best that we can, and that it is not a selfish competition to always see who's ideas are right and followed through with. Although this might not be much of an action, being consciously aware of your predispositions when entering a conversation can transfer to many aspects outside my life within MGMT 300 and I hope to take the necessary steps to break out of this habit.


References:

Brooks, A. W., & John, L. K. (2018). The Surprising Power of Questions. Harvard Business Review, 96(3), 60–67. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.auckland.ac.nz/login.aspx?direct=true&db=buh&AN=129192448&site=ehost-live&scope=site

Daudelin, M. W. (1996). Learning from experience through reflection. Organizational Dynamics, 24(3), 36-48

3 Comments

  1. Hi Henry,

    Great to see you are using Daudelin's structure and referencing other reading material from the course. The journal had a great outline, however I believe you could've added more detail in parts and less in others. Your analysis of the problem only says what you did not why you did it. This step helps you to make adjustments for next week from the learnings in the previous week. More detail about the decisions you didn't want to happen or your specific role in the team would've been some good context to have in order to better understand your position.

    I hope you're a bit more open minded going into the final couple of weeks, good luck for the rest of the sem.

    Tessa

  2. Hi Henry,

    Love the way you have structured your reflection and incorporated appropriate theory! Well done (smile)

    You have suggested some good solutions, but it might be good to know why you were so strongly against the team decision.

    Awesome work!

  3. Hey Henry,

    Good use of Daudelin to structure your journal. More of a pedantic suggestion from me is to add more spaces between your paragraphs or underline your subheadings to make reading easier.

    I think your journal could benefit from more in-depth analysis as to why you made the decisions you did, rather than just listing them. This would help me better understand your learning process. 

    Good luck with the remaining weeks.